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

Re: HTTP binding for WSDL 1.2

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: 29 May 2003 10:57:22 -0400
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <1054220241.32441.29.camel@jfouffa.w3.org>

On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 14:19, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 10:51:03AM -0700, Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote:
> > Any concerns if we make this simplification?
> Not specifically, but I would say that any action taken as the result
> of the resolution of issue 64[1] will impact the HTTP binding
> *significantly*.  So relatively minor edits like this one would seem
> to be a case of premature optimization. 8-)

I believe that the current proposal for HTTP binding addresses issues

<interface name='Bulb'>
 <operation name='state'>
   <part name='bulbId'/>
 <operation name='change'>
   <part name='bulbId'/>
   <part name='newState'/>

<binding name='http'>
 <operation name='state'>
   <http:verb value='GET'/>   
 <operation name='change'>
   <http:verb value='POST'/>
   Mhttp:operation location='?buldId={bulbId}'/>

<service interface='Bulb'>
 <endpoint name='http'>
   <http:address href='http://example.com/bulbs'>

Remove the operation constructions for this case would force us to
inline the parts inside the HTTP binding, which is against the
reusability of the interface imho. Now I could have named "state" and
"change", "GET" and "POST" directly if I wanted to. Wouldn't change
anything and the URI constructed will still be

I'd be certainly willing to consider a concrete proposal for the HTTP
binding if the current doesn't address your concern,

Received on Thursday, 29 May 2003 10:57:23 UTC

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