- 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>
John, 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 default. 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 To www-ws-desc@w3.org cc woden-dev@ws.apache.org, "John Kaputin" <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com> Subject Questions on {http method} and {safety} extension properties Some questions arose while implementing HTTP extensions from Part 2 Adjuncts. 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). [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#_http_binding_default_rule_method [2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html#property-InterfaceOperation.safety regards, John Kaputin
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 01:10:08 UTC