- From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:38:18 +0100
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>
Hi Mark, Thanks, > You're missing the point. POST doesn't mean "retrieve", and if you > use it for that, nobody knows you're doing so, and you're therefore not > using late-binding. If you want to use POST RESTfully, your only option > is to tunnel GET via POST as I just described </snip> Do you mean something like http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/DifferentlyAbledClients ? As far as doc-lit SOAP is concerned, this approach can make those doc-lit SOAP requests which use POST but mean GET RESTful enough, at least technically. Do you agree ? Cheers Sergey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sberyozkin@zandar.com> Cc: <www-archive@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 3:35 PM Subject: Re: Few questions about REST > Hi, > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:06:26AM -0400, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > > I'm asking what difference does it make to an intermediary that some > > document was *expected* (echoDocument example) or *not expected* > > (clarification request in SOAP primer) to be returned in reply to a POSTed > > request ? > > Your answer was that in a latter case an intermediary would not be confused. > > If so, then what can it do with such (clarification) data that it can't do > > with a document echoed back ? > > One thing it can do in the former case that it can't do in the latter > case is reason about security. > > > > > code early-binds a client. What is a programmimg model for accessing > > > > late-bound services ? > > > > > > Well, just look at your favourite languages' HTTP libs. > > Sorry, I was unclear, I was more concerned about code generation. With > > early-bound services, one just takes WSDL and generates the code (proxies) > > and that's it. > > With late-bound services, how far the code generation can get ? One can use > > WSDL support for HTTP GET/POST. For ex, a late-bound SOAP service would > > accept : > > > > GET soapgateway;stockquote:sunw > > or > > POST soapgateway;buystock:sunw > > some data > > > > Is it correct ? > > See below. > > > > > POST soapgateway;stockquote:sunw > > > > > > How so? Where's the documented expectation that POST will retrieve a > > > quote? > > Yes, you're right. In a perfectly RESTful environment one would use GET. > > But I think you pointed out in an earlier mail that is not unRESTful to use > > POST instead of GET (sorry, I can't find in www-archive, so here's an > > extract): > > >Strictly, the REST uniform interface constraint only requires that the > > >interface semantics be uniform. It doesn't require that you don't do > > >the equivalent of GET via POST. Moreover, I don't believe any of REST's > > >other constraints disallow it. > > What am I missing here ? > > That the "some data" in your "POST soapgateway;buystock:sunw" example > needs to include a uniform retrieval semantic (i.e. GET). > > > I guess one reason for using POST to get quotes from a late-bound doc style > > SOAP service would be to be able to pass headers. > > You're missing the point. POST doesn't mean "retrieve", and if you > use it for that, nobody knows you're doing so, and you're therefore not > using late-binding. If you want to use POST RESTfully, your only option > is to tunnel GET via POST as I just described - and while *technically* > RESTful, you're going to have an awful lot of problems deploying it in > large scale because you're basically building a new stack that you have > to convince people to adopt (i.e. convince firewall maintainers and > vendors to look into your http-over-http solution). > > Mark. > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 05:45:43 UTC