W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2002

RE: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 09:42:44 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A06EEF@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Hi Mark,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: 02 July 2002 18:36
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'xml-dist-app@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature
> 
> 
> Hey Stuart,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 12:43:40PM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > IMO it should be possible to use either of the Request-Response or
> > SOAP-Response MEPs without knowledge of the Web Method feature and that
in
> > such circumstances the HTTP Method used should be POST and GET
respectively.
> 
> IMO, the method and the MEP are a priori orthogonal, so I would consider
> it a mistake to attempt to derive one from the other.  If you knew the
> protocol you were using, then you could sometimes derive the MEP from
> the method, but not the other way around IMO.

Clearly our opinions differ...

If the user of a binding (a SOAP processor) has access to a binding within
it's local environment and that binding claims to support a given MEP that
the binding user understand then IMO it should be able to make use of that
MEP successfully without regard for other features supported by the binding
that the binding user either does not understand or chooses not to use.

IMO, as currently written in the HTTP binding, the user of the SOAP-Response
and Request-Response MEPs need to understand and use the Web Method feature
in order to successfully use these MEPs. IMO this is a mistake and breaks
the intent of the framework. Neither MEP specification indicates a critical
dependency on use of the Web Method feature, which is correct IMO.

The Web Method feature allows for binding users that understand it to make
use of it... that's fine... It happens that support for the Web Method
Feature is mandated for the HTTP binding in Part 2 and binding users that
wish to use it are free to do so. Equally, binding users that do not
understand it or choose not to use it should also be free to do so.

As for 'a priori' othogonal (although I'm not sure what you intend to
communicate with the 'a priori' prefix)... Should I be able to use PUT,POST
or DELETE in conjunction with the SOAP-Response MEP (and if so, how is a
responding SOAP node to determine that the SOAP-Response MEP is in
operation)? Should I be able to use GET in conjunction with the
Request-Response MEP (and if so, how is a responding SOAP node to determine
that the Request-Response MEP is in operation)? And if there are
restrictions on Web Method usage in combination with particular MEPs how
then are they "orthogonal"?
 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com

Best regards

Stuart
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 04:44:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:10 GMT