Re: Problem with HTTP verbs as WSDL operations

Jacek,

Interesting point. Of course, just a subtle point but the interface would
actually be:

interface HTTP {
        HTTPHeaders head(URI, HTTPHeaders) throws HTTPStatus;
        HTTPMessage get(URI, HTTPHeaders) throws HTTPStatus;
        HTTPMessage post(URI, HTTPMessage) throws HTTPStatus;
        HTTPMessage put(URI, HTTPMessage) throws HTTPStatus;
}
HTTPMessage := HTTPHeaders + MIMEContent

since HTTP header fields, even though they look like MIME headers, are not
MIME headers:)

It also raises the question of operation overloading, esp w/r/t POST if 
the
arguments are to be strongly typed. One can envisage a POST that accepts
two different types of content and based on the type of the argument, the
result might be different, etc.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

Jacek Kopecky wrote on 06/05/2003 10:39:06 AM:

> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've been vaguely following the discussion on issue 64 [1] and this
> thought occurred to me:
> 
> HTTP (and other application protocols) defines an interface, something
> like:
> 
> interface HTTP {
>   MIMEHeaders head(URI, MIMEHeaders);
>   MIMEMessage get(URI, MIMEHeaders);
>   MIMEMessage post(URI, MIMEMessage);
>   MIMEMessage put(URI, MIMEMessage);
> }
> MIMEMessage := MIMEHeaders + MIMEContent
> 
> This maps to a WSDL interface with four operations and MIME stuff as
> parameter and return value types.
> 
> Now what everybody seems to expect to do is restricting this interface
> and still presenting it as HTTP - in other words adding strong typing:
> 
> interface StockQuoteResource restricts HTTP {
>   MIMEHeaders head(URI, MIMEHeaders);
>   StockQuoteMessage get(URI, MIMEHeaders);
>   // post and put not redefined as they will not be permitted anyway
> }
> StockQuoteMessage := MIMEHeaders + XML Schema element StockQuote
> 
> If that's correct, we may need to add the ability to actually redefine
> (and maybe hide) parent interface's methods in a new interface. That
> feels like building a full object-oriented IDL language.
> 
> If, on the other hand, REST's uniform interface principle means we
> shouldn't restrict it, we won't be able to describe a StockQuoteResource
> in WSDL and every HTTP resource described in WSDL would implement the
> above-mentioned HTTP interface.
> 
> Personally, I would expect to be able to have a strongly-typed
> description of my HTTP resources so that, while a browser would use the
> full HTTP interface, programs could use an interface with more semantics
> to it. But I can't think now of any simple way to have a strongly typed
> WSDL interface that still shows its relation to the HTTP
> application-protocol interface.
> 
> Does this make any sense? 8-)
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Senior Architect
>                    Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x64
>

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 12:24:56 UTC