- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:16:31 +0600
- To: "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>, "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
"Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org> writes:
> > In IDL, if you say "attribute string foo" its simply another way
> > of saying "string getFoo ()" and "void setFoo (string)".
>
> Not exactly, this depends on the bindings in use. Java doesn't support
> attributes in interfaces, so it will get translated into get/set. C#
> will expose them as properties (with set{} throwing an exception for
> readonly ones).
The point is what goes in the stub. I understand the programming
model of the stub can defer from language to language, but clearly
all the stubs have to do *one* thing. What is that? A method call.
> > WSDL as the IDL for Web services should presumably support the same
> > model for attributes: an attribute x in WSDL means that the service
> > offers getx() and maybe setx() (if the attr is readonly).
>
> ... or an HTTP GET (and PUT if the attribute is not read-only).
One should certainly be able to bind these to HTTP GET/PUT. Is
that sufficient? ;-)
Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 11:16:34 UTC