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: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:07:44 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DA33@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sanjiva wrote:

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

hey, i only just woke up myself :-)

> 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 see @method on the interface as an abstraction though i'm happy 
for method to be enumerated as "GET, PUT, POST, DELETE" and then be 
extensible given the importance of HTTP to Web services. 

>> 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? 

i'm received a mild trout-slap from Dan Conolly in Cannes when i was
daft enough to mention how many people still see the distinction 
between GET and POST to be /complexity of input/ rather than just
/safety/. This is born out by the ability to arbitrarily substitute 
"POST" with "GET" with the default config on most Web servers. 
So whilst it is indeed possible to buy a book from many online stores 
using "GET", i now understand why that's not wise thing to do.

> 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.

agreed, but then i don't see @safe as being HTTP specific.

Sanjiva.

Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 05:08:45 GMT

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