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

RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon

From: Charlton Barreto <barreto@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:45:05 -0700
Message-ID: <0911261107CC9648A12399E739C6BEC2178F9B@namail5.corp.adobe.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <sanjiva@wso2.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
Agreed. I support leaving in the parts serialization of instance data in
the HTTP request IRI. 

 

-Charlton. 

 

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 1:42 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: paul.downey@bt.com; sanjiva@wso2.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org;
www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon

 


Jonathan, 

It is very common for data to appear in the IRI, e.g. id numbers. as in
http://example.org/part/1234 

I think this should be left in. 

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 



Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 

09/18/2006 12:18 PM 

To

Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "paul.downey@bt.com"
<paul.downey@bt.com> 

cc

"sanjiva@wso2.com" <sanjiva@wso2.com>, "www-ws-desc@w3.org"
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "www-ws-desc-request@w3.org"
<www-ws-desc-request@w3.org> 

Subject

RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon

 

 

 




My impression is that at this point the only part of the HTTP binding
that's at risk of being removed are the parts called out in the draft,
namely the serialization of instance data in parts of the HTTP request
IRI - the use of curly braces with the IRI style. 
  
I haven't heard anyone who plans to implement the HTTP binding saying
they won't also implement this part.  Is there any evidence to suggest
this part (6.7.1) should be cut?  Is it just too early to tell? 
  

 

________________________________


From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 6:51 AM
To: paul.downey@bt.com
Cc: Jonathan Marsh; sanjiva@wso2.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org;
www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon 
  

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 20:45:40 GMT

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