- 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