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

RE: HTTP binding options

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:52:26 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1D96@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Is it feasible to have a URL re-writing syntax that also covers other URLs such as FTP or SMTP ?

I guess i'm wondering about option 5 but not limited to the http-binding and not just for rewriting query_string parameters.


	-----Original Message----- 
	From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
	Sent: Wed 12/11/2003 17:56 
	To: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
	Subject: RE: HTTP binding options

	I'm strongly in favour of option 5.  I really don't see how we could
	seriously call this a "Web" service description language if there's no
	support for describing URLs.  We see a significant number of customers
	wanting to have better integration between URL parts and message parts in
	WSDL.  Y'all know how much I have argued against certain zealotry so I don't
	say this from that pov.
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
	> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
	> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:57 AM
	> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
	> Subject: HTTP binding options
	> The "HTTP binding table" at the post-meeting lunch came up
	> with the following possible options for the HTTP binding:
	> option 1:
	>     drop HTTP binding completely
	> option 2:
	>     define a POST binding only with the natural binding possible:
	>     input becomes POST body and output must be POST response
	> option 3:
	>     define option 2 +
	>     define GET binding for operations with MEP=in-out and with no
	>     input body (i.e., GET goes to http:address URL) and the output
	>     must be the GET response
	> option 4:
	>     define option 3 +
	>     define GET binding for operations with MEP=in-out and @style=rpc
	>     ala the WSDL 1.1 binding, but with rules to move all parameters
	>     into query parameters. (That is, no URL rewriting ala WSDL 1.1.)
	> option 5:
	>     define option 4 +
	>     add URL replacement to allow different parts to go in the URL
	>     itself vs. as query params
	> There was pretty strong sentiment against doing (5). (4) has the
	> negative that the value of operation/@style is bleeding into the
	> binding - which would be unfortunate. (3) is interesting and can
	> be generalized a bit for other MEPs if needed. An interesting twist
	> on (3) could be to allow appending a relative URL to the adresss
	> on a per-operation  basis. That's not without price (inconsistent
	> use of xml:base for relative URLs for one).
	> My current preference is that we do option (2).
	> Sanjiva.

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 17:53:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:36 UTC