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: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:05:25 +0600
Message-ID: <047b01c4688e$a1cb3370$f24e4109@LANKABOOK>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

(You guys all waited till I went to sleep to reply .. hence the barriage of
replies at once :-().

<paul.downey@bt.com> writes:
>
> same as SOAP "getStockQuote" with an endpoint of
> mailto:sanjiva@opensource.lk <mailto:sanjiva@opensource.lk>  - i.e. it
doesn't
> make much sense.

Not at all! If SOAP/SMTP binding is in use it makes perfect sense to
say "send a SOAP message to that email address." However, there's no
GETting or POSTing going on there.

> Not all interfaces can be bound to any arbitary transport/serialisation
> combination.

We've tried hard to keep it protocol independent as possible. Are you
also saying that HTTP is so special that we need to break the rule for
HTTP?

> I still beleive it /could/ be useful to say safe=false for those of us
daft enough
> to allow buying a book using "GET".

I am prolly missing something basic .. but why is that daft? There are many
HTTP queries (using GET) which are indeed unsafe. That's why we are
careful to not say that GET ==> @safe=true. (Nor vice-versa as you pointed
out correctly .. @safe=true doesn't necessarily mean method=GET.)

In any case, @safe is asserted at the interface operation level and hence
one does not know the HTTP method (or in fact whether the binding will
be HTTP) at that time.

Sanjiva.
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 00:44:05 GMT

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