Re: Issue 64, @method

• From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
• Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:04:28 -0400
• To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
• Cc: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <20040406010428.GB1870@markbaker.ca>

That would work, but it's rather long-winded/redundant, no?  The
binding is semantically a no-op, yet still requires all that
boiler-plate.  My proposal is basically a single bit which replaces
all that.
Mark.
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 02:29:30PM -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> The context of those comments (IIRC) was why we need something
> special-purpose to enable description of HTTP.  The normal way you would
> describe an operation in WSDL is using the <wsdl:operation> element.
> What's wrong with just using this to describe HTTP?  One could derive
> their own interfaces from it to constrain the structure of messages...
> 
> <wsdl:definitions 
>     targetNamespace="https://example.org/HTTP" 
>     xmlns:http="https://example.org/HTTP" 
>     xmlns:wsdl="https://www.w3.org/2004/03/wsdl" 
>     
>     <wsdl:interface name="HTTP">
>         <wsdl:operation name="GET">
>             <wsdl:input element="#any"/>
>             <wsdl:output element="#any"/>
>         </wsdl:operation>
>                 
>         <wsdl:operation name="POST">
>             <wsdl:input element="#any"/>
>             <wsdl:output element="#any"/>
>         </wsdl:operation>
>     </wsdl:interface>
> 
>     ...
> 
>     <wsdl:binding name="http:HTTP">
>       <http:binding>
>         <operation name="http:GET">
>           <http:operation location="..." method="GET" />
>         </operation>
>         <operation name="http:POST">
>           <http:operation location="..." method="POST" />
>         </operation>
>         ...
>       </http:binding>
>     </wsdl:binding>
> 
> </wsdl:definitions>
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Baker [mailto:mbaker@markbaker.ca] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 9:10 PM
> > To: Jonathan Marsh
> > Cc: WS Description List
> > Subject: Issue 64, @method
> > 
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 04:29:23PM -0800, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > > Marsh:   issue is can one get away without operation names when
> > >          using HTTP.
> > > Sanjiva: drop issue
> > > DaveO:   is he just proposing that the HTTP operations be described
> > >          as wsdl operations?
> > > ACTION:  Marsh to contact Mark Baker and see if @method satisfies
> > >          him.
> > 
> > While @method and the whole HTTP binding are welcome progress, I don't
> > believe they address issue 64.  But yours and DaveO's comment there
> hit
> > the nail on the head, IMO.  I think there's some useful ideas in my
> > earlier proposal, which was to do exactly what DaveO is suggesting
> (and
> > not just for HTTP, but for all application protocols).
> > 
> > Perhaps you guys could give it a re-read-over and let me know if you
> > think any of the options described there are do-able, or alternately
> > if you have some other ideas for how it might be done ...
> > 
> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0103.html
> > 
> > Mark.
> > --
> > Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        https://www.markbaker.ca
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        https://www.markbaker.ca

Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 21:05:24 UTC