RE: Additional HTTP and safety primer example and text

David,
 
I have changed the primer to reflect the changes we agreed upon below,
except one item,
 

"Addition to 6.7

 

wsdlx:safe="true"

on the interface operation element.  The HTTP Binding will set the
method to GET if wsdlx:safe="true"
"

 

when tried to make this change, I realized that it contradicts with the
status quo of section 6.7 which says: 

 

"Although the wsdlx:safe attribute of an interface operation indicates
that the abstract operation is safe, it does not automatically cause GET
to be used at the HTTP level when the binding is specified. The choice
of GET or POST is determined at the binding level: "

 

 

As I stated in my initial response, such change involves semantic
changes to wsdlx:safe. It needs the approval of the group, and should be
reflected in the core specs first before included in the primer.

 

Best Regards,
Kevin
  

 



  _____  

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Liu, Kevin
Sent: Thursday, Jun 16, 2005 12:13 PM
To: David Orchard; WS-Description WG
Subject: RE: Additional HTTP and safety primer example and text


David, 
 
Thanks a lot to thinking this through.  Actually at this moment, I am
just looking into how to reflect the changes of safety in the primer,
your proposal saves me a lot of time:))
 
I will incorporate pretty much all your propsoals except a few point
that need clarification. See my comments below.

Best Regards,
Kevin
  

 



  _____  

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of David Orchard
Sent: Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 9:59 PM
To: WS-Description WG
Subject: Additional HTTP and safety primer example and text



Section 2.4 and 5.1 example should change safe to wsdlx:safe
[Kevin]  will do. we also need to change example 2.1

 

I suggest 5.4.1 needs some text to describe how wsdlx:safe can be used.

[Kevin] yes. 

 

there are already 3 paragraphs in 5.4.1 explaining safety attribute. I
am thinking the only change needed is to reflect the fact that safe is
not an optional attributes of interface/operation any more, but a global
attribute that can be used with interface/peration. what do you think?

 

 My suggestion: The wsdlx:safe attribute may be used in bindings.  The
HTTP binding uses a "true" setting of wsdlx:safe to indicate that HTTP
GET is the operation, simplifying the HTTP Binding.
[Kevin] is this adopted semantic for the wsdlx:safe attribute? If so, I
have no problem adding it to the primer. But I don't want to introduce
new semantic via the primer.

 

Example 6.2 needs type="http://www.w3.org/2005/05/wsdl/http" in the
binding.
[Kevin] yes, will add.  

 

Addition to 6.7

 

wsdlx:safe="true"

on the interface operation element.  The HTTP Binding will set the
method to GET if wsdlx:safe="true"
[Kevin] yes, will do 

 

 

I suggest a new section 6.8

 

6.8 Safety and the HTTP Binding

In the GreatH interface definition shown in example 2.4, the wsdlx:safe
attribute = "true".  The HTTP binding will use this value to set the
http method to GET, meaning that methodDefault on binding or method on
binding operation do not need to be set for HTTP GET.  The HTTP Binding
can be simplified to:

 

<binding name="reservationHTTPBinding"

      interface="tns:reservationInterface"

      type="http://www.w3.org/2005/05/wsdl/http" >

 

    <operation ref="tns:opCheckAvailability"

        whttp:location="{checkInDate}"/>

  </binding>

 

The binding operation has used the wsdlx:safe attribute to generate the
HTTP GET operation.
[Kevin]  if this is adopted semantic for the wsdlx:safe attribute, i can
certainly add this, but would probably add as a subsection of 6.7