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

RE: Issue 169: Propose http method in the operation interface to simplify http binding.

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 00:04:27 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF08A325BF@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I agree with the friendly amendment.  

And I'm ok with with whatever name people want for the attribute, beit
"webMethod", "restMethod", "genericMethod", "constrainedMethod",
"httpMethod", "uniformMethod".  My guess is that genericMethod is
actually the most accurate and least controversial, but I'll accept
whatever name has the best chance at consensus.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Hugo Haas
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 2:35 AM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 169: Propose http method in the operation interface
> to simplify http binding.
> 
> 
> Hi Mark.
> 
> * Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> [2004-06-29 21:21-0400]
> > This proposal seems to me to reopen issue 64.  Correct?  If 
> so, what's
> > to become of Hugo's proposal[1]?
> > 
> >  [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0031.html
> 
> Thank you for refreshing my memory, as with all the discussions around
> the HTTP binding, I had lost track of this issue.
> 
> The issues list states[2]:
> 
>   Issue 69 resolution: Adopt Hugo's proposal; open syntax issues 169,
>   170.
> 
> So, I think that at this point the debate is on the syntax at this
> point.
> 
> My proposal was essentially to specify the Web method with a feature,
> specifically the SOAP Web Method Feature. There are two issues with
> this approach:
> - Some people don't like the idea of reusing the SOAP Web Method
>   Feature as there's SOAP in the name and in the URI. I have recently
>   reread the feature specification[3], and the fact that it associates
>   it with certain SOAP MEPs made me doubt about how generic it was.
> - A feature allows this information to be specified potentially at any
>   level, and in agreement with Dave and Mark, and unlike Amy, I
>   believe that this information makes sense at the interface operation
>   level, and Dave is right on by citing Atom as an example (Atom
>   should make use of the SOAP Web Method Feature IMO, but that's
>   another debate). I don't believe that this is HTTP-specific: SOAP
>   supports this concept, and other protocols that we may want to bind
>   the operation may also.
> 
> Therefore, I am happy with Dave's proposal, along with the defaulting
> mechanism he proposes.
> 
> I would propose the friendly amendment to tie the webMethod attribute
> to the SOAP Web Method Feature, by adding a paragraph in Part 3, in
> the SOAP binding, saying that the value of the webMethod attribute
> sets the value of the SOAP Web Method Feature
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/features/web-method/Method property.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hugo
> 
>   2. 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h
tml#x64
  3.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#WebMethodFeature
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:04:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT