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

Re: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 23:57:23 +0200 (CEST)
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
cc: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207042348020.29463-100000@mail.idoox.com>

 Hi all (the usual suspects), 
 Stuart pointed me to this thread asking for my thoughts. Again 
reading it has been enlightening to me on the issues about 
layering and application protocols.
 I agree with Mark that the web method specification should be 
mandatory when using the HTTP binding so that the tunnelists 
know they are in fact tunneling (by always specifying POST).
 I agree with Stuart though that once we call something a 
feature, it's not mandatory, it MAY be used to gain something. A 
binding provides features, it doesn't (so far, AFAIK) require the 
use of them.
 Therefore I see a simple solution like this:
 Say explicitly that the HTTP binding requires the WebMethod 
feature to be used. Nothing forbids a binding to do so, I 
believe. This should satisfy Mark (and Noah) in keeping the HTTP 
stuff explicit; it should also satisfy Stuart (and Marc) in 
making the spec clear about the dependencies between parts of it. 
I think the inconsistency in dependencies was Stuart's original 
issue. We might also want to say something about the limiations 
in the possible WebMethod and MEP combinations.
 Now off to my vacation. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2002 17:57:31 UTC

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