W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Problem with HTTP verbs as WSDL operations

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:12:49 -0400
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030605151249.I2167@www.markbaker.ca>

Hi Jacek,

On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 04:39:06PM +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> 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.

If the WG *wanted* to be RESTful (since they're not required to be), I
can make a suggestion.

You're partly correct about the uniform interface constraint getting in
the way.  The part of that constraint that's relevant here is the
self-descriptive constraint.  So in this case, the fact that some message
contains a representation of a stock quote should be reflected in the
message.  FWIW, I helped spec out an HTTP header which did just this[1].
Here's an example;

HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
Content-Length: xxx
Resource-Type: http://stocks.example.org/types/stock-quote/
Content-Type: application/soap+xml
[blank line]

(it could just as easily be a SOAP header)

So what you could do would be to declare the interface as you outlined
(but in WSDL), and with the proviso that the header is authoritative[2].

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Mar/att-0054/01-draft-palmer-resrep-type-00.txt
 [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
  Actively seeking contract work or employment
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 15:09:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:30 UTC