W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > June 2002

RE: Consequences of SOAP GET to Web Services?

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:38:46 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4035B70C6@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 9:31 AM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Consequences of SOAP GET to Web Services?
> Hmm.  The issue with generic methods isn't that all methods must be
> implemented, but that each makes sense.  For example, a non-generic
> method would be "GET-STOCK-QUOTE", which doesn't make sense when
> invoked on a weather report.  "DELETE" on a stock quote "makes sense";
> the client is attempting to delete the stock quote so that others
> cannot access it.  It will just likely be met with a 403, Forbidden.

OK, I understand ... I guess I think the "a priori" stuff is a good idea and
may well find a home in the WSA, but I'm not so sure it's in scope as a
requirement.  I'd prefer that requirements be of the "can't ship a spec
without them and claim to have done the job" variety; this seems like "a
good thing to encourage."  But I could live with it.

I'll avoid the other issues ... day job calls ... and we would probably
re-cover old ground anyway :~) 
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 09:39:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:34 UTC