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 10:27:35 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DA36@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <dorchard@bea.com>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Dave wrote:

> Further, a "GET" in the abstract may be bound to HTTP POST, 
> thus it is safe.  However, if we say that we support GET=safe, 
> then we can take care of that in a binding that uses POST for 
> a GET request. 

OK, i think i now "GET" this - sorry to be so slow.

if an operation is marked as using the abstract "GET" method,  
then i can see that it is indeed a good replacement for the 
@safe attribute.

> There may be other operations that are safe though, maybe HEAD...  
> However, given that we are only supporting GET/PUT/POST/DELETE in 
> our HTTP binding, then the only safe operation we have is GET.  

if the method was extended to support say, "HEAD", would it 
be useful to be able to mark the *method* as being "safe", 
rather than the individual operations that happened to employ "HEAD"?


Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 05:27:44 UTC

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