W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2006

Re: Questions on {http method} and {safety} extension properties

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:10:02 -0400
To: woden-dev@ws.apache.org
Cc: "John Kaputin" <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>, woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7DA21120.09E7E4E5-ON8525717E.0005EC0C-8525717E.00066E80@ca.ibm.com>

I suggested that POST be the default.

In another thread, the proposal is to make {safety} OPTIONAL. If absent, 
then the operation is assumed to be unsafe, hence POST is a reasonable 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca

"John Kaputin (gmail)" <jakaputin@gmail.com> 
05/23/2006 04:10 PM
Please respond to

woden-dev@ws.apache.org, "John Kaputin" <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>
Questions on {http method} and {safety} extension properties

Some questions arose while implementing HTTP extensions from Part 2 

In 6.3.1 HTTP Method Selection at [1]  is there a default value for {http 
method} if the {safety} property is "false"?

In 3.1 Operation Safety at [2] the {safety} property is defined as 
REQUIRED with a default value of "false" if not specified in the WSDL, so 
is the wording at [1] "...if a {safety} property ... is present ..." 
redundant (i.e. {safety} will always be present)?

And there's a possible typo in section 3.1 at [2].  The assertion refers 
to "...a safe interaction defined in Section 3.5 of [Web Architecture]". I 
think this should say Section 3.4 (i.e. section 3.4 Safe Interactions).



John Kaputin
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 01:10:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:58 UTC