- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:27:35 +0100
- To: <dorchard@bea.com>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Dave wrote: > Further, a "GET" in the abstract may be bound to HTTP POST, > thus it is safe. However, if we say that we support GET=safe, > then we can take care of that in a binding that uses POST for > a GET request. OK, i think i now "GET" this - sorry to be so slow. if an operation is marked as using the abstract "GET" method, then i can see that it is indeed a good replacement for the @safe attribute. > There may be other operations that are safe though, maybe HEAD... > However, given that we are only supporting GET/PUT/POST/DELETE in > our HTTP binding, then the only safe operation we have is GET. if the method was extended to support say, "HEAD", would it be useful to be able to mark the *method* as being "safe", rather than the individual operations that happened to employ "HEAD"? Paul
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 05:27:44 UTC