W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2004

Re: Issue 169: Syntax for webMethod - property or attribute?

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:46:51 -0400
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: Web Services Description <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040624124651.GK31862@markbaker.ca>


On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:37:41AM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> As I've said before, I don't believe that we did close this by removing "web method".  At the F2f, I pointed this out when we were talking about removing the "web method" completely and IIRC we agreed to look at it separately.  While it is true that the SOAP binding 2 MEPS only allow GET or POST, it is not true for this in the http binding or potential other bindings.  Notice that my message does not refer to the SOAP binding.
> As I argued before, the webMethod is useful to specify the generic/constrained operation at the interface operation level, not just in the binding.  Choosing a generic/constrained operation is an application designers choice and should be made available to them.  I also proposed that this "webMethod" could be used as a default for the http binding's http:method.  I proposed a "useOperationWebMethod" attribute, but in retrospect the interface operation webmethod should be the default for the http binding operation method.
> I further proposed a binding simplification that would deploy all the interface operations at a given URI, which would use the webmethod.  I could update the Music example to show how this helps simplify the binding.
> As a use case, Atom defines operations for interacting with various items.  One of the bindings they have is to put an "HTTP PUT" inside an "HTTP POST" when firewalls, etc. don't support PUT.  Arguably this is a new "HTTP GET+POST only" binding.   Thus the availability of the web method at the application level provides re-use for them as they can define that PUT and DELETEs are bound to POST.  The alternative is that they would have to specify a binding operation for each interface operation.
> My guess is that people are going to need some time to mull this over, now that we've recovered the thread.
> Cheers,
> Dave
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:46:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:41 UTC