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

Re: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:28:32 -0400
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020708122832.U10550@www.markbaker.ca>

On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 04:23:00PM +0100, Marc Hadley wrote:
> > The meaning of GET and POST, don't, no.
> 
>     --->
> 
>     GAP
> 
>     HEAD

8-)

> > But in the context of the
> > connection-based HTTP 1.1, GET and POST do inherit some restrictions
> > that impact the MEPs that can be used.
>  >
> Great, I think we are getting somewhere. So, in the context of the HTTP 
> binding (which is what we are talking about here) you would agree that 
> the use of GET and POST is not orthogonal to the MEP in use ?

Right.  But still not non-orthogonal enough to be able to derive the
method from the MEP. 8-)

> It sounds like you are drawing a distinction between an abstract 
> conceptual GET operation and the implementation of that operation in 
> HTTP. Unfortunately both are being labelled with the name 'GET' so it is 
> difficult to tell which one you are referring to in any given sentence. 
> If my surmise is correct I would be interested if you would care to 
> layout the areas of commonality and difference between the two. E.g. 
> does the conceptual abstract GET share the restrictions of HTTP GET that 
> the information retrieval must be safe ?

Yes, the abstract "GET" means exactly what it says in RFC 2616 section
9.3.  It's the rest of RFC 2616 that places restrictions on how this
meaning can be used to exchange messages in a HTTP 1.1 transaction.
Section 8 describes the bulk of them.

FWIW, I'm making this distinction only as an aid to explaining my point.
Maybe it's not working. 8-O

> > Sure.  But that only impacts the ability to transfer a SOAP message, not
> > the pattern with which it is exchanged.
> > 
> But in the HTTP binding we match MEPs to HTTP methods so the HTTP method 
> has to be able to support the MEP...

Yes, but "able to support the MEP" is determined more by the inherrent
message exchange constraints of HTTP 1.1, than it is by the meaning of
any given method, IMO.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 12:17:20 GMT

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