Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [soapbuilders] Proposal for SOAP GET test

Expand Messages
  • Rich Salz
    ... Is that important? I don t care, but I m curious. /r$
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 20, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > That tests both that the endpoint can handle GET and that it can handle
      > GET and POST on the same URI.

      Is that important? I don't care, but I'm curious.
      /r$
    • Sam Ruby
      ... I ll give you two answers. In REST terms, a URI is a Uniform Resource Identifier. In other words, it identifies a resource. The Python analog would be an
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 20, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Rich Salz wrote:

        >>That tests both that the endpoint can handle GET and that it can handle
        >>GET and POST on the same URI.
        >>
        >>
        >
        >Is that important? I don't care, but I'm curious.
        > /r$
        >

        I'll give you two answers.

        In REST terms, a URI is a Uniform Resource Identifier. In other words,
        it identifies a resource. The Python analog would be an object.
        Carrying this analogy further, a GET would be like a __str__(self):
        method, and a PUT would be like any method that may update the state of
        the object, say, __add__(self, other). If would be a rather strange
        implementation of Python that did not permit __str__ and __add__ methods
        on the same class, eh?

        In SOAPBuilders terms, I'd like to ensure that if someone were to design
        an application using Apache Axis and Java and then get disatisfied and
        want to reimplement it using ZSI and Python, that they would be free to
        do so. So, while URI's may be opaque and completely up to the server to
        generate, it is still possible to compare opaque URIs for equality, so
        this can be significant.

        - Sam Ruby
      • Rich Salz
        Okay, so it really is the same resource, so it should be the same URL. I ll buy that. Thanks. /r$
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 20, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Okay, so it really is the same resource, so it should be the same URL.
          I'll buy that. Thanks.
          /r$
        • Paul Prescod
          ... Yes, I feel it is important. Thanks to the flexibility of URIs and hypertext it may not be strictly necessary because a GET-catching resource could have a
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 20, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Rich Salz wrote:
            >
            > > That tests both that the endpoint can handle GET and that it can handle
            > > GET and POST on the same URI.
            >
            > Is that important? I don't care, but I'm curious.

            Yes, I feel it is important. Thanks to the flexibility of URIs and
            hypertext it may not be strictly necessary because a GET-catching
            resource could have a link to a POST-catching resource. But then you may
            need to unnaturally split a single logical thing into two. It's kind of
            weird to have the sub-resource change the state of the parent resource
            and I'd have to think more about whether that would have an impact on
            caches and RDF.

            As an analogy, what if SOAP were architected so that every method of
            every service needed its own URI. It would become difficult to reason
            about them as first-class objects and it would be inefficient to
            dereference the top-level resource to get at the method resources.
            --
            Come discuss XML and REST web services at:
            Open Source Conference: July 22-26, 2002, conferences.oreillynet.com
            Extreme Markup: Aug 4-9, 2002, www.extrememarkup.com/extreme/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.