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: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:04:08 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA2043B0B99@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

It's not totally clear to me what proposals for Issues 169 and 229 to
put on the table for tomorrow.  Should I treat this as an amendment to
David's original proposals (which are still a bit vague for my taste)?
Is it a friendly amendment or a hostile one?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:17 AM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 169: Propose http method in the operation interface
to
> simplify http binding.
> 
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 14 July 2004 17:04:25 GMT

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