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

RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:51:14 -0400
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com, sanjiva@wso2.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF977FCDA3.8243D432-ON852571ED.004B84E9-852571ED.004C1AF8@ca.ibm.com>
Paul/Sanjiva,

I think there is a lot of value in the HTTP binding because it closes the 
gap between what WSDL 1.1 could describe and what developers are actually 
using for things like AJAX. I'm sure this won't satisfy REST purists, but 
even the ability to use GET instead of POST is a welcome improvement.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



<paul.downey@bt.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
09/18/2006 09:11 AM

To
<sanjiva@wso2.com>, <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
cc
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon







Hi Sanjiva

>> <pauld> sees more benefit in resource centric approaches such as WADL 
>> for REST; WSDL 2.0 could be useful for people interested in POX

> WADL can waddle along and defined whatever they want. That doesn't mean 
we 
> need to pull this out. If users don't want both let market forces decide 

> the "winner".

+1 FWIW, I was trying to emphasise the difference between WSDL HTTP 
which is great for describing messaging systems, but shouldn't get 
mired by being sold as some kind of REST description language.

> WSDL's HTTP binding is not about REST! Its about describing how to 
> exchange WSDL messages over raw HTTP without SOAP.

Agreed.

Paul
Received on Monday, 18 September 2006 13:51:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:41 GMT