W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2004

RE: Issue 64, @method

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:29:30 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA20326A92B@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

The context of those comments (IIRC) was why we need something
special-purpose to enable description of HTTP.  The normal way you would
describe an operation in WSDL is using the <wsdl:operation> element.
What's wrong with just using this to describe HTTP?  One could derive
their own interfaces from it to constrain the structure of messages...

<wsdl:definitions 
    targetNamespace="http://example.org/HTTP" 
    xmlns:http="http://example.org/HTTP" 
    xmlns:wsdl="http://www.w3.org/2004/03/wsdl" 
    
    <wsdl:interface name="HTTP">
        <wsdl:operation name="GET">
            <wsdl:input element="#any"/>
            <wsdl:output element="#any"/>
        </wsdl:operation>
                
        <wsdl:operation name="POST">
            <wsdl:input element="#any"/>
            <wsdl:output element="#any"/>
        </wsdl:operation>
    </wsdl:interface>

    ...

    <wsdl:binding name="http:HTTP">
      <http:binding>
        <operation name="http:GET">
          <http:operation location="..." method="GET" />
        </operation>
        <operation name="http:POST">
          <http:operation location="..." method="POST" />
        </operation>
        ...
      </http:binding>
    </wsdl:binding>

</wsdl:definitions>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:mbaker@markbaker.ca] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 9:10 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: WS Description List
> Subject: Issue 64, @method
> 
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 04:29:23PM -0800, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > Marsh:   issue is can one get away without operation names when
> >          using HTTP.
> > Sanjiva: drop issue
> > DaveO:   is he just proposing that the HTTP operations be described
> >          as wsdl operations?
> > ACTION:  Marsh to contact Mark Baker and see if @method satisfies
> >          him.
> 
> While @method and the whole HTTP binding are welcome progress, I don't
> believe they address issue 64.  But yours and DaveO's comment there
hit
> the nail on the head, IMO.  I think there's some useful ideas in my
> earlier proposal, which was to do exactly what DaveO is suggesting
(and
> not just for HTTP, but for all application protocols).
> 
> Perhaps you guys could give it a re-read-over and let me know if you
> think any of the options described there are do-able, or alternately
> if you have some other ideas for how it might be done ...
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0103.html
> 
> Mark.
> --
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 17:29:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT