- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:31:59 +0100
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Hi Ugo and Mark (and all). * Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> [2002-11-26 11:26-0800] > >If it were resolved > >such that HTTP methods, including GET, were given their rightful status > >as WSDL operations, then that's all a developer has to know, and they > >can write software that uses GET as it's defined in RFC 2616; any "safe" > >or "idempotent" flag would be superfluous. > > I have the impression that Hugo wanted to also address cases where POST is used instead of GET (because, for example, headers are to be specified), but still the operation is idempotent. So just looking at the method would not sufficient to tell whether the operation is idempotent or not. Well, almost. I was not advocating for misusing HTTP POST though, nor legitimating it. What I had in mind was to give a description of the idempotency, safeness, HTTP method equivalence at the abstract level, i.e. idenpendently from the binding. Basically, a portType could be bound several different ways. Adding this information could help choose the right binding(s). * Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> [2002-11-26 14:13-0500] > I think that WSD issue #64[1] covers your concern. If it were resolved > such that HTTP methods, including GET, were given their rightful status > as WSDL operations, then that's all a developer has to know, and they > can write software that uses GET as it's defined in RFC 2616; any "safe" > or "idempotent" flag would be superfluous. I don't think that it covers what I had in mind because it is tied to the HTTP binding. OTOH, HTTP method equivalence is definitely closer to HTTP than any other protocol, but I was trying to do something general. Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 11:32:01 UTC