- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:43:41 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:45, David Orchard wrote: > At the end of the draft finding, it says "Section 3 WSDL 1.2 Bindings [WSDL] > provides a binding to HTTP GET, which makes it possible to respect the > principle of using GET for safe operations. However, to represent safety in > a more straightforward manner, it should be a property of operations > themselves, not just a feature of bindings.". > > I'm not quite sure what this means. As I mentioned in the telcon, we hear a certain amount about folks wanting to use POST all the time because it's supported better by point-and-click development tools. My goal is that these point-and-click development tools include an "[ ] safe operation" checkbox next to each operation. The results of that checkbox go into the WSDL file as a property of the operation, and the software that binds it to HTTP would use GET, provided there are, say, less than 8 parameters that are all scalars. > Does this suggest that there should be > a general property of operations that specifies safetey, which could then be > bound to POST? Marking HTTP POST operations safe is different from what I had in mind. I don't see anything wrong with it, but I don't see very much benefit from it either, compared to the benefit of making the results of safe operations addressable. > That is a operation declarated safe could be bound to POST? > I think that's the right interpretation, in which case I'm comfortable with > the wording. > > Interestingly, I just heard the need from 2 customers last week who want to > be able to have a "ping" function to test the availability of a service. > > At this point, I don't think the WSDL WG has accepted this requirement. The > editors copy of the requirements document (last updated feb 2003), has > requirement R125 as the only TAG sourced requirement. > "R125 > The normative description of the InterfaceBinding for SOAP 1.2 MUST support > the SOAP 1.2 MEP for HTTP GET in and HTTP SOAP out. (From TAG. Last > discussed 26 Sep 2002.) > " > > I propose to ask them for some clarification and call the finding to their > attention. Yes, as we discussed, that seems like a good idea. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 09:43:42 UTC