Re: Make p:http-request required?

On 5/7/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>
>
> Norman Walsh wrote:
> > / Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say:
> > | / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
> > | | I don't really understand how p:http-request works (as in the 30th
> April
> > | | draft). It doesn't seem to be a standard atomic step, since it has
> > | | attributes that correspond to options.
> > |
> > | Ah. True. Those things probably ought to be options.
> >
> > Oops. Brain cramp. The method, href, status-only, and override-mimetype
> > *attributes* are on the ***c***:http-request element, not the step.
> >
> > That element is expected to be the document element of the request
> > sent on the input port.
> >
> > Having p:http-request and c:http-request may be asking for trouble.
>
> I think we should avoid using XML documents to configure a step unless
> absolutely necessary. I don't think it's necessary in this case.



In the case of making an HTTP request, the URI and other aspects of
making the HTTP request often aren't configuration parameters.  Certainly
in the REST architecture, you need to dynamically formulate the
actual request from some set of input XML.  As such, there is very little
that easily maps to a simple option without severe limitations.

The current input and output document representation maps directly
to the HTTP protocol specification.  You can't map HTTP to a finite
set of name/value pairs without making decisions that seriously
limit functionality.


-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics