- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:50:24 +0600
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> writes:
>
> I agree with the friendly amendment.
>
> And I'm ok with with whatever name people want for the attribute, beit
> "webMethod", "restMethod", "genericMethod", "constrainedMethod",
> "httpMethod", "uniformMethod". My guess is that genericMethod is
> actually the most accurate and least controversial, but I'll accept
> whatever name has the best chance at consensus.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
I see little difference between @genericMethod and the operation/@name
attribute that already exits.
Why not go all the way and recommend people to do what Mark always
wanted? Allow/enable/encourage people to name their method GET/PUT
etc.:
<operation name="GET"> .. </operation>
Actually we wouldn't need to do anything to enable this IIRC. You
might say that that's not "special enough" .. but then unless
the operation is mapped to HTTP GET/PUT its not special anyway.
Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 09:51:06 UTC