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: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 11:45:15 +0100
Message-ID: <3D24273B.2010607@sun.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Mark Baker wrote:
>>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 ?
> While GET is safe, not all safe methods are GET.  For example, HEAD is
> safe.
Indeed, but as our binding doesn't offer support for use of HEAD I saw 
little point in mentioning it.

> I have to admit to being confused by the suggestions to derive the
> method.  Why is that desirable?  A developer has to know what methods
> are being invoked.  How else can they get their job done?
I think this is an instance of the top-down vs bottom-up dichotomy. In 
the top-down view the app/developer would choose a suitable MEP and the 
binding would deal with the HTTP-specific stuff like choice of HTTP 
method. I.e. the framework would offer a clean separation between the 
application and the underlying protocol.

The suggestion of the "safe" feature was to allow an app to indicate 
that the exchange was safe to give the binding the information it needs 
to choose a suitable HTTP method. The problem with the current 
formulation is that the web-method (not HTTP method) GET carries MEP 
connotations as well as information as to the "safe"ness of the exchange.

Is that any clearer ?


Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2002 06:45:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:20 UTC