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

Re: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 13:24:54 +0100
Message-ID: <3D22ED16.3050602@sun.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Williams, Stuart wrote:
 >
> Mark Baker wrote:
>>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.
> 
Hmm, not sure about that, if you are using HTTP and using the 
request-response MEP then POST is the only option we provide - no ?

> 
> 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.
> 
+1


> 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.
> 
+1


> 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.
> 
Another +1 ;-)

> 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"?
>  
All good questions. I don't think the MEP and web method feature (as 
currently formulated) are particularly orthogonal. I wonder if a better 
formulation might be to add an optional "safe" feature instead of the 
existing web method feature such that the HTTP binding will use GET only 
when the MEP is response and the "safe" feature is set ?

Regards,
Marc.

-- 
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 08:25:32 GMT

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