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: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 11:13:27 +0100
Message-ID: <3D2965C7.3050501@sun.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Mark Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 11:56:21AM -0600, Champion, Mike wrote:
> 
>>I've totally lost
>>track of what *else* you (MB) want SOAP 1.2 to actually say to encourage
>>RESTfulness.
> 
> I don't need it to say any more.  I just don't want it to say any less
> than it already does, which is why this thread started.
> 
> The rest of this discussion is to try to point out (in a round about
> way) that GET is an application semantic, like getStockQuote, or
> getPurchaseOrder.
 >
Just to try to bring this back around to Stuart's (and my) original 
problem with the current formulation. I don't think either of us 
disagrees (Stuart, please jump in here if you do) that GET is an 
application semantic, but at the moment the GETness of the operation is 
duplicated in two places: the MEP in use and the value of the web method 
feature (which has an implicit MEP). As it stands the MEP and value of 
the web method feature can disagree and the spec is silent on what 
happens if they do.

My suggestion of refactoring the existing formulation to use MEPs and a 
'safe' feature in place of the web method feature was intended to remove 
the duplication from the two whilst preserving the ability of the HTTP 
binding to accurately model and make use of the web architecture.

Regards,
Marc.

-- 
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 06:13:33 GMT

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