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: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:12:55 -0700
Message-Id: <E4F3C427-CB81-11D8-B7F4-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: Amelia Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>, "<paul.downey@bt.com>" <paul.downey@bt.com>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Web Services Description <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>

On Jul 1, 2004, at 7:11 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> My point is that the HTTP verbs are not so special.

Err... This is the W3C ;)

>>> Can someone explain what that means in SOAP and for RMI/IIOP?
>> Sure.  In the case of SOAP, as we see in Atom, they can bind a
>> "GET" operation to either HTTP GET or to SOAP.
> When mapping to SOAP/HTTP will you require that it be bound
> to "GET" or is "POST" ok too? If its the latter what is the
> semantic of saying @webmethod="GET"? If its the prior, then
> again you're looking at the special case of SOAP-Response MEP
> which has built-in support for GET.

Because it may be desirable to model applications as state transfer, 
even if this isn't advertised in a way that HTTP implementations (e.g., 
caches) can take advantage of (i.e., the HTTP method). State transfer 
is a higher-level and more useful abstraction than simple messaging.

>> In the case of SOAP, they set the soapaction to "GET".
> As a WS-Addressing fan, I'd never do that .. my SOAPAction
> will be the dispatching key for the service.

Personally, I see SOAPAction as more analogous to the media type than 
the method in REST...

Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 13:13:02 UTC

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