- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:37:31 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Hi Mark et al,
On Apr 20, 2004, at 9:40 AM, Mark Baker wrote:
> Hmm. "getStockQuote has the semantics of GET" is what I want too, but
> it
> seems we mean it in different ways. I want the operation name to be a
> label ("documentation", as Arthur says) for a particular class of GET
> invocations, while leaving it such that the client/application only
> knows that "GET" occurred. This seems similar to Mark Nottingham's
> strawman[3], as he states;
>
> The nice thing here is that unlike operation name overloading (e.g.,
> name="getFoo"), everything is in extensions; you can still name your
> operation 'getStatus' or just plain 'Status' if you want to.
Yes; the idea is that if your code wants to use the name, it can, but
it can also just use the (method, input, output) tuple; or vice versa.
>> <wsdl:operation wsdl:webMethod="GET">
>> <wsdl:input element="schema1"/>
>> <wsdl:output element="schema2"/>
>> </wsdl:operation>
>>
>> But then an application can't really identify the operation when
>> there are more than 1, like if the GoldPayingCustomer was added.
>
> Yes, you'd need another service/URI for that in the RESTful case. See
> Mark's strawman again.
Right. I was thinking that you'd have some identifier for a "virtual"
resource that the operation is associated with, and then map that to
URIs in the binding. The most correct way to do it would probably to
make each resource a separate portType, but that gets unwieldy quickly,
so a means of aggregating several related resources into a portType
(sorry, Interface) is needed.
Slightly related (and long-winded) thoughts also at:
http://www.mnot.net/blog/2004/04/16/generative
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2004 13:37:49 UTC