- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:01:16 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: public-web-http-desc@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 11:55:03AM +0200, Mark Nottingham wrote: > I'm not against this kind of design, but I also want to support doing a > one-to-one mapping between resources and objects, as discussed before. > > In other words, the description should allow both of these forms of > code generation: > > class MyWebApp: > def postEntry(args): > ... > def getEntry(args): > ... > def getEntryList(args): > ... > > and > > class EntryList(Resource): > def GET(args): > ... > def POST(args): > ... > def resolveChild(name): > return Entry(name) > > class Entry(Resource): > def __init__(self, name): > self.name = name > def PUT(args): > ... > def GET(args): > ... > > I don't think this is a big problem, just want to make sure people keep > it in mind as a use case. Ok, Mark. I have some issues with those interfaces, but those are secondary to my major concern; is it your intent that the service provider be the one authoring instances of the description language which describe those interfaces? If so, I don't see it, for the reasons I've already given. If not, then we're in synch, but then this is a very different use case than what we've been assuming to date. Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 14:00:35 UTC