Re: HTTP binding options

"FABLET Youenn" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr> writes:
> I do not remember that there was a "pretty strong sentiment against 
> doing 5", i.e. URL replacement.

I was referring to the lunch table discussion .. at which, IIRC, you 
were not there. Sorry, should've been clearer.

> Maybe I do not recall the entire discussion. Anyway, I would also favor 
> option 5, which seems to be equivalent to today's http binding 
> functionnality.

It is, but today's only works like that for messages with multiple parts
where the parts are all simple. We'd need to effectively define a
specialization of the RPC style to make it work now .. thereby 
bleeding @style to bindings, which would be unfortunate IMO. That's
what lead to most of the WSDL 1.1 interop problems I believe.

> Personly, I would even go beyond and ask to generalize the access 
> mechanism (used by the url replacement) to work not only with the http 
> binding but also with the soap binding, for instance to directly set 
> property values with abstract data.

That makes the binding language into a pretty powerful language for
how an HTTP request is formed. I think that's overkill for what we need.

Sanjiva.