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

RE: http binding

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:44:28 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF05E2010C@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

and PUT and DELETE ?

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
Sent: 29 October 2003 11:39
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: http binding


No, I wasn't going as far as saying the same operation has
multiple bindings (actually we don't support that within
a single binding) - just that some operations may want GET
and others POST.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Cc: <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: http binding


>
> You mean (in WSDL terms), a single operation that exchanges messages
> sometimes with GET, sometimes with POST?
>
> I don't think we have that flexibility today, but maybe this is
> something we should explore.
>
> JJ.
>
> paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
>
> > I recently saw a SOAP/HTTP service which used a query string in the URL
to provide routing and security parameters and POST to exchange SOAP
documents
> >
> > - should WSDL allow, bar or ignore this combination of GET and POST ?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> > Sent: 29 October 2003 11:05
> > To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: http binding
> >
> >
> >
> > I think the removal of <message> offers interesting possibilities
> > for a "direct" HTTP POST binding. I'd like to explore that.
> >
> > I'd like to define an HTTP GET binding for RPC style operations.
> >
> > Finally, we need to sort out the SOAP Response MEP stuff.
> >
> > So maybe there isn't much difference, but we need to get it all
> > done. I don't expect there will be a MIME binding at all, but to
> > be honest have not thought about how MTOM bindings may work.
> >
> > Bye,
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
> > To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> > Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: http binding
> >
> >
> >
> >>How different would that be from the text that went in last time (apart
> >>from component model issues)?
> >>
> >>JJ.
> >>
> >>Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'd like to see us make some progress on the HTTP bindings too.
> >>>I've been thinking about this for a while, even though I haven't
> >>>put anything down on paper yet. However, I do have 20 hrs of
> >>>sitting in planes to do just that.
> >>>
> >>>Can we get some time to discuss it at the F2F? I don't think
> >>>there'll be enough to make decisions, but I'd like to get
> >>>people thinking on how we may want to evolve the HTTP stuff.
> >>>
> >>>Philippe, I know you've had a long standing action item on
> >>>this .. I'm not trying to take that over (sorry for appearing
> >>>to do so though, especially without asking), but I would like
> >>>to make progress on it. If you have anything that you can send
> >>>with your thoughts on it (before Saturday night my time - Sat
> >>>AM yours) then I can go thru that too while writing down what
> >>>I have in mind.
> >>>
> >>>Sanjiva.
> >>>
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 06:44:29 GMT

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