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: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:50:24 +0600
Message-ID: <027601c45f72$5dbffc30$84614109@LANKABOOK>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> writes:
> 
> 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

I see little difference between @genericMethod and the operation/@name
attribute that already exits. 

Why not go all the way and recommend people to do what Mark always 
wanted? Allow/enable/encourage people to name their method GET/PUT
etc.:

    <operation name="GET"> .. </operation>

Actually we wouldn't need to do anything to enable this IIRC. You
might say that that's not "special enough" .. but then unless 
the operation is mapped to HTTP GET/PUT its not special anyway.

Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 09:51:06 GMT

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