W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 16:22:24 -0400
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-ws@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF448A8571.EC30A4EF-ON85256D36.006B29C5-85256D36.006FEA7B@us.ibm.com>

Mark,

Nonsense! It is just a parameter to the query that is an HTTP GET. It is 
NO
different than if there were a query parameter that took values of 
"chocolate"
or "vanilla" and dispatched that to separate functions for processing 
depending
on the value. It is still a GET. 

There is nothing in HTTP or REST that says HOW you implement the software 
that
sits behind the GET interface or how your URI is resolved or HOW the 
resource 
representation that is returned comes into being. 

If the GET is "safe", how the interface is implemented in software that 
processes
the method (GET) and its arguments (the URI, HTTP header fields and query 
arguments) 
is IRRELEVANT (by design no less!) no matter how ridiculously fine a 
distinction you seem 
to want it to place on it.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-request@w3.org wrote on 05/30/2003 03:30:11 PM:

> 
> Jeff,
> 
> It's difficult to answer the visibility question for this example,
> because what you propose is to encode a message into an identifier.  As
> the message has a method ("GetStockPrice") and GET is also a method,
> there exists an ambiguity about what the effective method is, which is
> critical in determining the visibility.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
>   Actively seeking contract work or employment
> 
Received on Friday, 30 May 2003 16:22:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:43 GMT