W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2007

RE: Operation dispatch when there isn't a SOAP body.

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:57:52 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC9522550A201369@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, <jonathan@wso2.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>

> I am OK with improvements to the Primer.

me too.

> The issue of dispatch is somewhat artificial. It was caused by the 
> non-RESTful practice of using a single endpoint for all Web service 
> requests and then relying on the SOAP engine to dispatch the request to 
> the right implementation object. For example, the early Apache SOAP 
> implementation called this endpoint the "router".

> REST is based on the proper use of well-designed URLs. Web servers, 
> including Java servlet containers, have the ability to map URLs to code, 
> e.g. a servlet can handle a URL pattern.

> Your proposal for the definition of a default HTTP location for 
> interfaceless bindings is interesting. However, I wonder how useful an 
> interfaceless binding is for REST. I think toolkits would probably 
> implement some strategy for generating HTTP locations based on the input 
> arguments of methods.

I'm not sure I fully understand the proposal, but I'm reminded 
of the dispatching discussion we had for SOAP, where we were cautious 
to specify GEDs given wsa:Action or indeed other mechanisms might be 
employed, I recall we just require there to be some 'uniqueness' ..

Given Web frameworks use a wide variety of dispatching methods, 
often as an ordered sequence of regex expressions, 
are we obliged to be similarly vague for the HTTP binding?


Received on Thursday, 4 January 2007 10:58:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:07:04 UTC