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: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 19:14:18 +0600
Message-ID: <19e801c465b6$a59f99d0$84614109@LANKABOOK>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I still haven't seen a defined semantic of what @webMethod="GET" or
@webMethod="POST" means in a generic sense. Can you please provide
those semantics? What are the accepted values for @webMethod?

Unless such semantics can be given *in an HTTP independent manner*
and they can potentially be bound to other protocols, I'm most
definitely -1 on adding @webMethod to interface/operation.

I would specifically appreciate your explaining the relationship
between @webMethod and @safe (the latter of which we already have).
Also, in a SOAP world, how would @webMethod interact with
wsoap:mep (and the implied HTTP method when SOAP/HTTP is in use)?

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>; "Amelia A Lewis"
<alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 1:22 PM
Subject: RE: Issue 169: Propose http method in the operation interface to
simplify http binding.


>
> GenericMethod is something that is specified by the interface developer
and potentially could be used by every binding.  The interface developer
makes a conscious choice at interface design time.  They may be informed by
which bindings they will use, but maybe they won't.  It so happens that all,
well both, bindings we have developed can use it.  I think the utility in
our bindings is indicative of the relevence to the overall community.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeffrey Schlimmer [mailto:jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 11:29 PM
> > To: Amelia A Lewis; David Orchard
> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Issue 169: Propose http method in the operation interface
> > to simplify http binding.
> >
> >
> > If something is specified in more than one binding, will the
> > WG move it
> > up into wsdl:interface?
> >
> > Or should the scope of wsdl:interface/* cover only that which is
> > expected to be utilized by (nearly) all bindings?
> >
> > Applying the latter principle would suggest that webMethod does not
> > belong on wsdl:interface/* because it would not map to all bindings.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:51 PM
> > > To: David Orchard
> > > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Issue 169: Propose http method in the
> > operation interface
> > to
> > > simplify http binding.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:40:48 -0700
> > > David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> wrote:
> > > > The changes to WSDL are:
> > > > 1. WSDL interface operations contain optional webMethod attribute.
> > > > This is an HTTP operation name.
> > >
> > > Strongly -1.  We have worked hard to separate keep the abstract
> > interface
> > > abstract.  HTTP methods are binding-specific, not interface-level
> > > abstractions.
> >
Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 09:14:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT