- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:57:52 -0000
- To: <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, <jonathan@wso2.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
> I am OK with improvements to the Primer. me too. > The issue of dispatch is somewhat artificial. It was caused by the > non-RESTful practice of using a single endpoint for all Web service > requests and then relying on the SOAP engine to dispatch the request to > the right implementation object. For example, the early Apache SOAP > implementation called this endpoint the "router". > REST is based on the proper use of well-designed URLs. Web servers, > including Java servlet containers, have the ability to map URLs to code, > e.g. a servlet can handle a URL pattern. > Your proposal for the definition of a default HTTP location for > interfaceless bindings is interesting. However, I wonder how useful an > interfaceless binding is for REST. I think toolkits would probably > implement some strategy for generating HTTP locations based on the input > arguments of methods. I'm not sure I fully understand the proposal, but I'm reminded of the dispatching discussion we had for SOAP, where we were cautious to specify GEDs given wsa:Action or indeed other mechanisms might be employed, I recall we just require there to be some 'uniqueness' .. Given Web frameworks use a wide variety of dispatching methods, often as an ordered sequence of regex expressions, are we obliged to be similarly vague for the HTTP binding? http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/misc/rewriteguide.html http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/url_dispatch/ Paul
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2007 10:58:05 UTC