Re: http binding

We certainly want to support these additional verbs.

JJ.

paul.downey@bt.com wrote:

> and PUT and DELETE ?
> 
> Paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: 29 October 2003 11:39
> To: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: http binding
> 
> 
> No, I wasn't going as far as saying the same operation has
> multiple bindings (actually we don't support that within
> a single binding) - just that some operations may want GET
> and others POST.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
> To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
> Cc: <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:22 PM
> Subject: Re: http binding
> 
> 
> 
>>You mean (in WSDL terms), a single operation that exchanges messages
>>sometimes with GET, sometimes with POST?
>>
>>I don't think we have that flexibility today, but maybe this is
>>something we should explore.
>>
>>JJ.
>>
>>paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I recently saw a SOAP/HTTP service which used a query string in the URL
> 
> to provide routing and security parameters and POST to exchange SOAP
> documents
> 
>>>- should WSDL allow, bar or ignore this combination of GET and POST ?
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
>>>Sent: 29 October 2003 11:05
>>>To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
>>>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>>>Subject: Re: http binding
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I think the removal of <message> offers interesting possibilities
>>>for a "direct" HTTP POST binding. I'd like to explore that.
>>>
>>>I'd like to define an HTTP GET binding for RPC style operations.
>>>
>>>Finally, we need to sort out the SOAP Response MEP stuff.
>>>
>>>So maybe there isn't much difference, but we need to get it all
>>>done. I don't expect there will be a MIME binding at all, but to
>>>be honest have not thought about how MTOM bindings may work.
>>>
>>>Bye,
>>>
>>>Sanjiva.
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
>>>To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
>>>Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:21 PM
>>>Subject: Re: http binding
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>How different would that be from the text that went in last time (apart
>>>
>>>>from component model issues)?
>>>
>>>>JJ.
>>>>
>>>>Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'd like to see us make some progress on the HTTP bindings too.
>>>>>I've been thinking about this for a while, even though I haven't
>>>>>put anything down on paper yet. However, I do have 20 hrs of
>>>>>sitting in planes to do just that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can we get some time to discuss it at the F2F? I don't think
>>>>>there'll be enough to make decisions, but I'd like to get
>>>>>people thinking on how we may want to evolve the HTTP stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>Philippe, I know you've had a long standing action item on
>>>>>this .. I'm not trying to take that over (sorry for appearing
>>>>>to do so though, especially without asking), but I would like
>>>>>to make progress on it. If you have anything that you can send
>>>>>with your thoughts on it (before Saturday night my time - Sat
>>>>>AM yours) then I can go thru that too while writing down what
>>>>>I have in mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sanjiva.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 08:31:59 UTC