- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:21:10 +0100
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- CC: public-ws-pnf-tf@w3.org, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Sounds good. What about adding the following feature, to cover setting
HTTP header fields, which we've postponed[1] until features were available?
HTTP binding:
feature
http://www.example.org/2003/03/http/header-field
property
name: http://www.example.org/2003/03/http/header-field/name
type: xsd:string
property
name: http://www.example.org/2003/03/http/header-field/value
type: xsd:string
We could also generalize this features for any protocol, not just HTTP,
i.e. define it at the abstract level.
Jean-Jacques.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0050.html
Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> Here is a proposal for the features and properties associated with the
> http binding and soap http binding, based on discussion with Arthur.
>
> abstract level:
>
> The goal of defining them at the abstract level as well would be to
> provide a hint to the implementation. Their use is not
> required. Mapping XML Schema complexType into an HTTP GET won't be
> done. Of course, you can serialize the Infoset in the URI but who would
> like to use those uris? Based on the abstract feature, one can
> determine if a result is cachable for example, even if an HTTP POST is
> used underneath.
>
> feature
> name http://www.example.org/CRUD
>
> property
> name: http://www.example.org/method
> value space: create | retrieve | update | delete
>
> HTTP binding:
> feature
> http://www.example.org/2003/03/http/web-method
> property
> name: http://www.example.org/2003/03/http/web-method/method
> value space: PUT | GET | POST | DELETE
>
> SOAP HTTP binding:
> feature
> http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/web-method/
> property
> name: http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/web-method/Method
> value space: PUT | GET | POST | DELETE
>
> Do we need to invent a new feature for the HTTP binding? Well, not
> really, but it would be good if people don't associate systematically
> the SOAP Web Method Feature with SOAP itself. It's more a feature that
> needs to be attached to HTTP imho but the URI used does not reflect
> that.
>
> Philippe
Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 07:21:26 UTC