W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2006

RE: HTTP Method selection

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:09:01 -0800
To: "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "'www-ws-desc'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002201c71a4c$99d50660$3401a8c0@DELLICIOUS>

This is now issue CR123. A proposal is to add a sentence along the lines of 

"Conformance to this (HTTP) binding requires conformance to the wsdlx:safety
extension [ref]."

Or if you don't like "conformance",

"Implementations supporting this binding must also support for the
wsdlx:safety extension [ref]."

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Youenn Fablet
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:40 AM
> To: www-ws-desc
> Subject: HTTP Method selection
> 
> 
> Reading section 6.3.1 of the latest draft, the presence of the safe
> property may change the selected HTTP method (GET or POST typically).
> If we have operation foo that is marked as safe:
>    - a processor supporting the HTTP binding and the safety extension
> will select the GET method for operation foo
>    - a processor supporting the HTTP binding but not the safety
> extension will select the POST method for operation foo
> This may prevent interoperability.
> To ensure interoperability, the engagement of the HTTP binding extension
> should in fact generally imply the engagement of the safety extension.
> The cost of the safety extension being low, I think it makes sense to
> tighten the link between the safety and HTTP extensions.
>    Youenn
> 
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 22:11:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:43 GMT