- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 19:08:53 +0100
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Hi Mark, > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: 03 July 2002 17:24 > To: Williams, Stuart > Cc: 'xml-dist-app@w3.org' > Subject: 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" Ok... in our current style that would likely be expressed as a bunch of precondition wrt to the use of a feature or features in combination. But we are back to the optional/mandatory nature of the use rather than provision of features. I guess what your saying is... the binding user didn't set webmeth:Method, the binding goes 'barf... you didn't set webmeth:Method' and the binding user scratches its head... but I know what I expect Request-Response to do... if its lucky someone says... just plug in POST it'll work, all will be fine... so I use that recipe with no more or less understanding of who to organise and identify resources than I had before. > > > 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 > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Jan/0416 Well I think that leaves things horribly twisted... but as possibly a non- or an anti- layerist... I doubt that would bother you ;-) > MB > -- > Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org > http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com Regards Stuart
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 14:12:46 UTC