[kendall@monkeyfist.com: Re: CONSTRUCT *]

[Andy, Bijan and I were having an offline discussion, and I thought
this message might be worth having in the archives. Andy's the
>-quoted speaker, and I'm the unquoted one.]

> How about just defining [getGraph operation] as a separate WSDL
> interface?  A service may offer (a component to service) it or not.

Absolutely; put it into a separate WSDL interface and let concrete
bindings implement it or not, as that makes sense. And since we'll
have a standardized concrete HTTP binding in the protocol document,
people won't be tempted to misimplement getGraph in HTTP by doing
something dumb like GET /?action=getGraph or some such.

This idea of multiple interfaces and interfaces that inherit others
that we get from WSDL is actually *incredibly* useful from a spec
writer's point of view since it means we don't have to get into
conformance levels and the like. You implement the interfaces you care
about and you describe the ones you implement.

> That way we may be doing a wider community the favour of defining
> [getGraph for protocols other than HTTP].Maybe they already have - 
> wasn't there a SOAP/POST GET-like thing?

Fair enough; be nice to hear about that in Last Call.


Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 14:08:18 UTC