- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 22:34:05 +0600
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Mark,
> > >From a WSDL point of view, that's just a binding. So whatever
> > the abstract syntax we agree on, we could define a RESTified
> > HTTP binding using the MONITOR method as you did quite easily.
>
> How so? How could you define a binding to an application method like
> MONITOR? I thought bindings were supposed to be protocol independant.
?? Bindings are spsed to be exactly protocol dependent. That's
where one specifies how to talk to the service .. and where is what
the <port> indicates. So "how" is of course protocol dependent.
If the HTTP binding had a method attr we'd be done with this
right?
<http:binding method="MONITOR"/>
(Does it already? I forget .. it probably does to support GET/POST.)
Am I missing something?
> FWIW, we use OPTIONS for this. If you invoke the OPTIONS method on a
> URI and the Allow response header includes "MONITOR" then you know you
> can monitor that resource for event notifications.
So really MONITOR and OPTIONS are just part of the interface of
the service. We can quibble (and I suspect we will) about whether
those are part of a nice and RESTy standard interface or not ;-).
> Side bar; hmm, I wonder if OPTIONS wouldn't be a better method to return
> WSDL than GET?
Could be .. but this is the first time I heard of OPTIONS so I
really don't know .. ;-).
Sanjiva.
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 11:36:24 UTC