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: 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
Message-id: <20040713111723.3233eb81.alewis@tibco.com>

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 GMT

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