- From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:09:01 -0800
- To: "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: "'www-ws-desc'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
This is now issue CR123. A proposal is to add a sentence along the lines of "Conformance to this (HTTP) binding requires conformance to the wsdlx:safety extension [ref]." Or if you don't like "conformance", "Implementations supporting this binding must also support for the wsdlx:safety extension [ref]." Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Youenn Fablet > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:40 AM > To: www-ws-desc > Subject: HTTP Method selection > > > Reading section 6.3.1 of the latest draft, the presence of the safe > property may change the selected HTTP method (GET or POST typically). > If we have operation foo that is marked as safe: > - a processor supporting the HTTP binding and the safety extension > will select the GET method for operation foo > - a processor supporting the HTTP binding but not the safety > extension will select the POST method for operation foo > This may prevent interoperability. > To ensure interoperability, the engagement of the HTTP binding extension > should in fact generally imply the engagement of the safety extension. > The cost of the safety extension being low, I think it makes sense to > tighten the link between the safety and HTTP extensions. > Youenn >
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 22:11:12 UTC