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

I am not at all willing to accept that "webmethod" is an abstract
protocol independent concept.

Can someone explain what that means in SOAP and for RMI/IIOP?

I don't at all agree the @style info is in the same category - that's
not saying *anything* about the semantics of the operation .. just
a bit of info about the syntax of the data being sent back and
forth. (In the case of @style="rpc" it means that the schemas
follow a style which permit extracting a method signature .. when
augmented with Roberto's clever signature syntax.)

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
To: <mark.nottingham@bea.com>; <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>; <dorchard@bea.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 4:46 PM
Subject: RE: Issue 169: Propose http method in the operation interface to
simplify http binding.


>
> > 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.
>
> so a criteria for putting information into the interface is "an abstract
> concept shared across multiple bindings". I think Dave's proposal
> satisfies that WRT being shared, but maybe the name "webMethod" is
> too overloaded and not abstract enough for some (Amy)?
>
> > 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.
>
> i'd agree it would be ugly, but would a change in syntax from
> style="list of URIs" to lax extensibility be "good enough" to keep
> the webMethod down inside the bindings?
>
> Paul