- From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:08:44 -0800
- To: "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thank you for this comment. The Working Group this issue as a CR123 [1]. The latest editor's draft [2] adds a dependency on the wsdlx:safe extension to the HTTP binding. Unless you let us know otherwise within 2 weeks, we will assume you agree with the resolution of this issue. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR123 [2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html ?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#http-binding-supported-extensions Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Youenn Fablet > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:40 AM > To: www-ws-desc > Subject: HTTP Method selection > > > Reading section 6.3.1 of the latest draft, the presence of the safe > property may change the selected HTTP method (GET or POST typically). > If we have operation foo that is marked as safe: > - a processor supporting the HTTP binding and the safety extension > will select the GET method for operation foo > - a processor supporting the HTTP binding but not the safety > extension will select the POST method for operation foo > This may prevent interoperability. > To ensure interoperability, the engagement of the HTTP binding extension > should in fact generally imply the engagement of the safety extension. > The cost of the safety extension being low, I think it makes sense to > tighten the link between the safety and HTTP extensions. > Youenn >
Received on Friday, 16 February 2007 00:08:48 UTC