Re: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature

I think there's just one fundamental disagreement here, so I'll respond
to that first.  After that, just a couple of quickies.

On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 04:23:00PM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> A binding spec describes *how* to make use of the underlying protocol to
> honor the semantics of the features (inc. MEPs) that the binding
> specification requires implementations of that binding to support. If the
> binding specification or implementation introduces further constraints that
> aren't part of the relevant feature/MEP definition then it is implementing a
> different (undefined) feature from the one that it is claiming to implement
> (IMO).
> Clearly, you can fix this by modifying the relevant feature/MEP definitions
> to match the binding behaviour (I think this is your preference but not
> mine).

Hmm, that wouldn't be my preference.  My preference would be that it is
possible for there to be a mismatch between a set of features/MEPs,
and a protocol binding.  i.e. "sorry, there's no reasonable way to
implement this feature/MEP with this underlying protocol"

> > But perhaps some future HTTP-like protocol with its own GET
> > could do that.
> But... why would such a protocol ever need to do that to implement the same
> semantics as HTTP GET

Perhaps because it wants to account for SOAP.

>... I mean... if we start putting things in the body of
> the request aren't we identifying resources by means other than URI ;-)

Well, I didn't say the body would have to contribute to identifying
anything.  It could just be an alternate header syntax[1].  8-O


Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.     

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 12:13:18 UTC