- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:29:16 -0400
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1
Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624
Noah
Mendelsohn/Cambridg To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
e/IBM@Lotus cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@Sun.COM>,
Sent by: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
xml-dist-app-reques Subject: Re: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature
t@w3.org
07/15/2002 10:09 AM
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.
Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
07/14/2002 10:15 PM
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
cc: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@Sun.COM>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'"
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>, (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.
MB
--
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 10:47:41 UTC