RE: HTTP binding for WSDL 1.2

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Philippe Le Hegaret
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 7:57 AM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: HTTP binding for WSDL 1.2
> 
> 
> 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
> 64.
> 
> <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
> http://www.example.com/bulbs?buldId=42
> 
> I'd be certainly willing to consider a concrete proposal for the HTTP
> binding if the current doesn't address your concern,
> 
> Philippe
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 29 May 2003 12:05:21 UTC