- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:44:12 -0700
- To: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Hi Amy, On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Amelia A Lewis 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. I see this as EXACTLY equivalent to putting RPC "style" information into the interface; all we're doing here is putting Web "style" information into the interface. In the same way that some tools can use RPC "style" information to make modelling choices, so too might I want to use Web/RESTful hints to help the abstract modelling of my application; this is very useful at the interface level. Put another way, if this information is relegated to the binding only, WSDL is restricted to only modelling interchanges as "in/out" abstractions, rather than richer concepts like state transfer, etc. If I were Director for a day, I'd have a very hard time Recommending something that purported to be a "Web" description language, when it accommodates abstract modelling of RPC, yet fails to do so for REST. Cheers, P.S. This requirement could be satisfied by defining a few new "RESTful" style attribute URIs; e.g., style="http://www.w3.org/.../GET". However, that's syntactically ugly and unnecessary, which brings us back to issue 217. Not that I want to beat a dead horse or anything. -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 20:33:56 UTC