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 00:08:33 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF08A325C0@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> the WSDL spec needs to be clear that the semantics of the contract are
> PUT, and not putStockQuote.  i.e. a successful response from 
> a document
> being submitted to that endpoint, only means that PUT was invoked, not
> that putStockQuote was invoked.  Perhaps making name optional would be
> useful, and discouraging its use when "webMethod" is used??  Dunno.

As I said earlier, just because the "webMethod" is set to PUT does not mean that the actual
protocol method used in the binding is PUT.  PUT is the constrained/generic semantics at 
the abstract level, but the realization may be different.  Case in point is Atom. 

I had suggested at one point that the "name" could be optional, but I know
believe that would be a bad decision.  The name is the identifier for the relationship between
inputs, outputs, faults, and optionally generic operations.  I think naming these things and
being able to refer to them is good.

Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:08:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:49 UTC