- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:17:23 -0400
- To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:37:56 +0600 Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote: > IIRC we added @safe as a way to satisfy the TAG. I for one did not > (and do not) believe it belongs in the interface level (because > of HTTP specificness) and don't accept that as a trojan horse to > add more HTTPisms to the interface. I let it go because I'm not > convinced many people will use it and its use is optional in any > case. +1 (can I plus more than one?) > How about the following: IMO there's nothing wrong with a binding > in WSDL choosing to add properties to abstract components. That is, > I don't believe we say anywhere that a binding can only add stuff > inside the <binding> element. So, if you really want to add the > "web method" concept to the interface, then add it as: > > <operation name=".." safe="yes|no" whttp:webMethod="whatever"> > ... > </operation> > > If you want to add it as a feature that's fine too; both are forms > of extensibility. I still am not at all convinced that the concept > is abstract and belongs in the interface for all bindings, but if > the HTTP binding wishes to define something that can be asserted > at the interface level that's ok with me. I could live with this as well. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 11:17:49 UTC