Re: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature

On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 11:13:27AM +0100, Marc Hadley wrote:
> Just to try to bring this back around to Stuart's (and my) original 
> problem with the current formulation. I don't think either of us 
> disagrees (Stuart, please jump in here if you do) that GET is an 
> application semantic, but at the moment the GETness of the operation is 
> duplicated in two places: the MEP in use and the value of the web method 
> feature (which has an implicit MEP). As it stands the MEP and value of 
> the web method feature can disagree and the spec is silent on what 
> happens if they do.
> My suggestion of refactoring the existing formulation to use MEPs and a 
> 'safe' feature in place of the web method feature was intended to remove 
> the duplication from the two whilst preserving the ability of the HTTP 
> binding to accurately model and make use of the web architecture.

Right, you said this earlier in this thread.  My response was that there
is no duplicate information; a MEP describes how messages are exchanged,
independant from the meaning of those messages.

Perhaps we can talk about that on this week's call.

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

Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 08:36:47 UTC