Re: HTTP binding options

After having read the entire thread, I'm still inclined to go for (at 
least) option 3).

It would be interesting to know if the TAG is likely to raise an issue 
if we don't support HTTP GET (for idempotent operations), like it did 
for SOAP 1.2.

David, any (wild) guess?

JJ.

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> 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 Thursday, 13 November 2003 08:36:15 UTC