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

RE: Issue 64 resolution: HTTP operations as WSDL operation names

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:26:18 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF06F1ECDF@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Constrained in the sense that the operation names are constrained to a finite set.  Sometimes the terms generic or uniform are used.  Uniform is slightly misleading because REST actually defines 4 different aspects of Uniform interface, only 1 of which is the reduced method/operation/verb set.

> > Users use the operations in their application as the 
> abstract methods.  However they bind it is, well, how they 
> bind it.  They could bind a "PUT/DELETE" to POST ala Atom, 
> but probably shouldn't bind GET to a PUT.  If you want to 
> call it REST:GET, that's fine by me.  I had made an earlier 
> suggestion to that effect because of exactly the same concern 
> you raised.  I'm glad we are in agreement about having some 
> trouble with the name(s), but I think the bigger issue is 
> whether WSDL 2.0 should provide a constrained interface.
> On that we agree. By the way, "constrained" interface in what sense?

Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2004 23:27:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:48 UTC