Re: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature

 Mark,
 as Stuart has already written, what you wrote was not his 
position, it was Marc's though.
 I believe both Stuart's and Marc's proposals would remove a
problem from our spec, Stuart's being much less intrusive,
therefore preferable in the LC stage.
 So lemme join JJM in +1ing Stuart's proposal. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Mark Baker wrote:

 > 
 > Hi Jacek,
 > 
 > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:43:58PM +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
 > >  Mark,
 > >  does this mean that we can make an HTTP method called 'SOAP' and 
 > > be done with all methods stuff? SOAP would be an HTTP method, 
 > > just not defined in the HTTP specification. SOAP would be able to 
 > > suit all currently defined MEPs. How good for the Web and for 
 > > interoperability would this be?
 > 
 > That depends.  Is it an application semantic, and is its meaning
 > generic to all resources?  If so, it might be useful - but I'd
 > suggest renaming it to better reflect its true meaning. 8-)
 > 
 > >  I agree with Marc that MEP and safeness are orthogonal, while
 > > MEP and WebMethod are not, so we may solve this whole issue by
 > > removing the WebMethod feature and adding a property of the HTTP
 > > binding (or of the SOAP Response MEP) indicating the safeness of
 > > the operation.
 > >  IOW, we need to control an aspect of the binding's message (the
 > > method) so we MUST provide it with the necessary information.  
 > > Calling a required piece of information a 'feature' is IMHO a
 > > misnomer. Calling it a property would be better.
 > 
 > Well, as it stands right now, the Web method is exposed as a property.
 > So you're suggesting replacing it with a "safe" property and removing
 > any mention of the method?  This is my understanding of Stuart and
 > Marc's positions.
 > 
 > In addition to my strong objection, I'd note that this would be a
 > substantial change to what we agreed to go to Last Call with, so would
 > presumably set us back to Working Draft status.
 > 
 > MB
 >

Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 09:24:24 UTC