Re: Draft agenda: 24 June TAG teleconference (Arch document, WSA update)

David Orchard wrote:

> It is clear the description of GET binding that uses parameters in WSDL does
> not have the same level of information that the POST Binding does.
> Specifically, the GET binding uses the form "urlencoded", and none of the
> parameters can be described - beit names, types, order.  The WSDL GET
> binding does support types and parts for non-parameters.  So
> can have types associated with foo, foo2,
> foo3.  This also conveiently deals with ordering of parameters and names.
> The problem comes about when parameters are used.  WSDL does not define any
> mechanism for typing the query parameter, ie

I hope that the rest of the TAG is better-educated on this stuff than I 
am, because I just read these two paras and don't understand them in the 
slightest.  I think I basically don't understand the usage of the word 
"type" that's being used here... what do you mean by "typing the query 

> The WSDL 1.1 GET binding with query parameters - the type suggested by the
> SOAP 1.2 specification for GET - does not provide any mechanism for
> expressing the syntactice schema of the types expressed in the GET query.
> This poses a significant problem for interoperability for SOAP with GET
> implementations, compared to the HTTP POST binding for SOAP.

An example would really help here.... in many services I'm aware of, the 
receiver & sender of a message both know what the datatypes of the 
message components are supposed to be, so this info isn't included at 
runtime; consider a Google "advanced search" URI

I see no type information.... what am I missing?

> I think I've provided sufficient background material, possible solutions,
> and potential action items for a fruitful discussion today.

Pardon me being dense. -Tim

Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 14:37:45 UTC