RE: Issue 169: Propose http method in the operation interface to simplify http binding.

As part of the "Web" services description language, I'd use the semantics and the names of the HTTP verbs.  I don't see much need to be independent of the most widely deployed generic protocol ever.  Also, check out soap 1.2 adjuncts.  It talks about the webMethod feature being bound to protocols other than HTTP.  That's why it's a feature and not a new binding or mep.  They could have done the "webmethod" mep, but made it a feature.  Good enough for soap, good enough for me.

I'd say that if we used @webMethod (or how about @genericMethod), then we could get rid of @safe.  @safe is a special case that applies to GET.

Maybe if @webMethod="get" then the default wsoap:mep is soap-response.

Cheers,
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 6:14 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 169: Propose http method in the operation interface
> to simplify http binding.
> 
> 
> 
> I still haven't seen a defined semantic of what @webMethod="GET" or
> @webMethod="POST" means in a generic sense. Can you please provide
> those semantics? What are the accepted values for @webMethod?
> 
> Unless such semantics can be given *in an HTTP independent manner*
> and they can potentially be bound to other protocols, I'm most
> definitely -1 on adding @webMethod to interface/operation.
> 
> I would specifically appreciate your explaining the relationship
> between @webMethod and @safe (the latter of which we already have).
> Also, in a SOAP world, how would @webMethod interact with
> wsoap:mep (and the implied HTTP method when SOAP/HTTP is in use)?
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
> To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>; 
> "Amelia A Lewis"
> <alewis@tibco.com>
> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 1:22 PM
> Subject: RE: Issue 169: Propose http method in the operation 
> interface to
> simplify http binding.
> 
> 
> >
> > GenericMethod is something that is specified by the 
> interface developer
> and potentially could be used by every binding.  The 
> interface developer
> makes a conscious choice at interface design time.  They may 
> be informed by
> which bindings they will use, but maybe they won't.  It so 
> happens that all,
> well both, bindings we have developed can use it.  I think 
> the utility in
> our bindings is indicative of the relevence to the overall community.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jeffrey Schlimmer [mailto:jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 11:29 PM
> > > To: Amelia A Lewis; David Orchard
> > > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: Issue 169: Propose http method in the 
> operation interface
> > > to simplify http binding.
> > >
> > >
> > > If something is specified in more than one binding, will the
> > > WG move it
> > > up into wsdl:interface?
> > >
> > > Or should the scope of wsdl:interface/* cover only that which is
> > > expected to be utilized by (nearly) all bindings?
> > >
> > > Applying the latter principle would suggest that 
> webMethod does not
> > > belong on wsdl:interface/* because it would not map to 
> all bindings.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> > > On
> > > > Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:51 PM
> > > > To: David Orchard
> > > > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Issue 169: Propose http method in the
> > > operation interface
> > > to
> > > > simplify http binding.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:40:48 -0700
> > > > David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> wrote:
> > > > > The changes to WSDL are:
> > > > > 1. WSDL interface operations contain optional 
> webMethod attribute.
> > > > > This is an HTTP operation name.
> > > >
> > > > Strongly -1.  We have worked hard to separate keep the abstract
> > > interface
> > > > abstract.  HTTP methods are binding-specific, not 
> interface-level
> > > > abstractions.
> > >
> 
>

Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 19:13:36 UTC