RE: Additional HTTP and safety primer example and text - Done

Hi David, Hi Paul,

I have complete incorporating your contributions on Safety and HTTP
binding. Please check out mainly the following section and let me know
if you are not satisfied with my editings:

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.ht
ml#adv-get-vs-post

Best Regards,
Kevin
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Liu, Kevin
> Sent: Friday, Jun 17, 2005 11:17 AM
> To: paul.downey@bt.com; dorchard@bea.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Additional HTTP and safety primer example and text
> 
> 
> + 1. 
> 
> The related part 2 section [1] is consistent with Paul's amendament as
> saying:
> 
> <quote>
> The actual value of the whttp:method attribute information item, if
> present; otherwise, the actual value of the whttp:methodDefault
> attribute information item, as defined in 6.5 Specifying the Default
> HTTP Method; otherwise, if a {safety} property as defined in 3.1
> Operation safety is present on the bound Interface Operation component
> and has a value of "true", the value "GET"; otherwise, it is 
> an error. 
> </quote>  
> 
> Also note as the TAG finding in [2] pointed out there are situations
> that GET is not a natural choice even if the operation is marked safe.
> Two common examples quoted are when sensitive data is passed as
> parameters nd when the parameter size is just too large to be 
> encoded in
> a URL. 
> 
> [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20
> -adjuncts.
> html#tab_HTTP_Operation_Mapping
> 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet.html
> 
> Dave, if you have no objection, I will add the primer text in 
> the spirit
> of "defaulting". 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Kevin
>   
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: paul.downey@bt.com [mailto:paul.downey@bt.com] 
> > Sent: Friday, Jun 17, 2005 2:36 AM
> > To: Liu, Kevin; Liu, Kevin; dorchard@bea.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Additional HTTP and safety primer example and text
> > 
> > my understanding is safety can be used to provide a default 
> verb which
> > may be overridden by the HTTP binding. i.e:
> >  
> > """
> > 2) The HTTP binding would take a dependency upon the safe 
> > attribute, and
> > when the safe property is set to true, the HTTP method would 
> > default to
> > GET, though this can be overridden when other considerations 
> > (e.g. data
> > not easily serialized in a URI) apply.  This satisfied 
> those who felt
> > safety was important enough to not only remain in the family of
> > Recommendations, but to have a real effect on the HTTP binding.
> > """
> >  
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0009.html
> >  
> > I suggest changing Dave's wording of 'will set the method' to 
> > 'will by default
> > set the method' or some such
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > 	-----Original Message----- 
> > 	From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Liu, Kevin 
> > 	Sent: Thu 6/16/2005 11:49 PM 
> > 	To: Liu, Kevin; David Orchard; WS-Description WG 
> > 	Cc: 
> > 	Subject: 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
> > 
> > 			 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 17 June 2005 21:50:36 UTC