- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:34:33 -0600
- To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 10:33 -0500, Arthur Ryman wrote: > > Dan, > BTW, there is a WSDL extension attribute wsdlx:safe [1] You can use > that to mark on operation that is known to be safe, in which case it > would be bound to GET. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-adjuncts-20060106/#safety I assumed we were using that. Kendall, are we not? Hmm. > Is the query operation supposed to be safe? Yes. > > <operation name="query" > pattern="http://www.w3.org/2006/01/wsdl/in-out"> > > You have two HTTP bindings for it, GET and POST. Doesn't this violate > Web architecture? No. > If the operation is safe, it should be bound to GET. It _is_ bound to GET; it's also bound to POST. > If the operation is not safe, it should not be bound to GET. Seems > like binding the same operation to both GET and POST should never > happen. Or are you leaving it up to the user? Yes, with this advice: [[ The queryHttpGet binding should be used except in cases where the URL-encoded query exceeds practicable limits, in which case the queryHttpPost binding should be used. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/#query-bindings-http See also section 5 Practical Considerations in the relevant TAG finding: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet.html#practical > Does the safety depend on the actual query, i.e. some querys do > updates (I have read the SPARQL spec) ? We haven't specified updates in this version; nonetheless, some queries don't fit in GET. > If so, having both bindings does make sense.Thx. > Arthur Ryman, > IBM Software Group, Rational Division > > blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/ > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 16:34:43 UTC