W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2003

Re: http binding

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:32:08 +0100
Message-ID: <3F9FA538.4050904@crf.canon.fr>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> I think the removal of <message> offers interesting possibilities
> for a "direct" HTTP POST binding. I'd like to explore that.

How different would this be from the current HTTP binding? Not 
specifying the verb in the binding, but using a HTTP-POST-URI instead?

> I'd like to define an HTTP GET binding for RPC style operations.

... and POST, if we go that route (remember XMLP had to do a 
SOAP-Response MEP, to satisfy the TAG; we're likely to face a similar 
issue).

> Finally, we need to sort out the SOAP Response MEP stuff. 

Wouldn't this be part of the SOAP binding, rather than the HTTP binding 
(unless you are thinking of layering the two bindings on top of each other)?

> So maybe there isn't much difference, but we need to get it all 
> done.

No disagreement here!

 > I don't expect there will be a MIME binding at all,

+1

 > but to
> be honest have not thought about how MTOM bindings may work. 

My current feeling is that there should be no MTOM binding per say, but 
an extension of the current (revised!) SOAP binding instead.

This being said, since the XMLP WG is on the verge of separating MTOM 
into a general, SOAP-agnostic specification, and a SOAP-specific 
implementation specification, maybe there is also room for a general, 
non SOAP-related, "abstract" MTOM binding. Or maybe, in the interest of 
time and simplicity, we should leave this as work for a future extension.

Cheers,

JJ.
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 06:32:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT