Re: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature

With the apology that I am on vacation and have not had a chance to read 
the whole thread in detail, I think I agree with Mark B.:  I think that 
"safe" is not what we're trying to say, although it is part of it.  At 
some point we might want to enable PUT, DELETE, etc., each with a response 
that includes a SOAP envelope (a creation or deletion confirmation, for 
example.)  The architecture we have sets us up to do that.  Furthermore, 
as Mark suggests, I don't want to risk going back to last call over this.  

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Mark Baker <>
Sent by:
07/14/2002 10:15 PM

        To:     Jacek Kopecky <>
        cc:     Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@Sun.COM>, "''" 
<>, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature

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.

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

Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 10:10:28 UTC