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: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:32:07 +0600
Message-ID: <0ad401c46a24$b1113b80$f24e4109@LANKABOOK>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

It sure looks friendly to me (just adding "whttp:" in front ;-)) but
I suspect its considered hostile by some.

In any case, I believe its a perfectly good solution to address this
problem/requirement.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:04 AM
Subject: RE: Issue 169: Propose http method in the operation interface to
simplify http binding.


>
> 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 Thursday, 15 July 2004 00:32:45 GMT

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