RE: Issue 169: Propose http method in the operation interface to simplify http binding. from paul.downey@bt.com on 2004-07-12 (www-ws-desc@w3.org from July 2004)

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:57:20 +0100
To: <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DA2C@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>

Sanjiva wrote:

> So what does GET on mailto:sanjiva@opensource.lk mean? I don't see
> how you can make such arbitrary application of the HTTP verbs
> to any old URI and expect it to make sense .. if you explain the
> above try DELETE mailto:sanjiva@opensource.lk too!

same as SOAP "getStockQuote" with an endpoint of 
mailto:sanjiva@opensource.lk <mailto:sanjiva@opensource.lk>  - i.e. it doesn't make much sense.
Not all interfaces can be bound to any arbitary transport/serialisation 
combination.

The "method" name semantics lie in the domain of the service publisher, along 
with those of the "operation" name. 

> In other words, we don't need @safe anymore .. we already say that
> @safe=true MUST means its safe and no information is given otherwise.

We still need "safe" since an operation using a POST method could be safe 
e.g.HTTP/ SOAP getStockQuote.

I still beleive it /could/ be useful to say safe=false for those of us daft enough
to allow buying a book using "GET".

Paul

Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 16:05:25 UTC