You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by ant elder <an...@gmail.com> on 2008/10/22 12:50:44 UTC
Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
A draft spec for an HTTP binding has been posted to the OASIS bindings
mailing list -
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00078.html
It has some interesting things such as using the new wireFormat element and
the suggestion that you could extend that for atom and json support. I'm
interested in doing an implementation of this spec, anyone interested in
helping?
...ant
Re: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
ant elder wrote:
>
> +1 to that, implementing specs while they're being drafted at OASIS and
> giving feedback to the spec guys is something we supposed to be doing
> isn't it?
>
> ...ant
>
Folks,
Yes, absolutely.
A good cooperative approach.
Yours, Mike.
Re: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I briefly read the draft. My impression is that it tries to come up some
>> sort of poor-man's Web Service support over HTTP using RPC style (tunneling
>> the invocations over HTTP). What are the advantages over SOAP/HTTP or
>> JSONRPC/HTTP? I'm wondering if it would be better to focus on the REST style
>> by mapping HTTP methods into a set of business operations that deal with
>> resources.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
>> From: ant elder
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:50 AM
>> To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
>> Subject: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
>>
>>
>>
>> A draft spec for an HTTP binding has been posted to the OASIS bindings
>> mailing list -
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00078.html
>>
>> It has some interesting things such as using the new wireFormat element
>> and the suggestion that you could extend that for atom and json support. I'm
>> interested in doing an implementation of this spec, anyone interested in
>> helping?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> I think this will fall into the different strokes for different folks
> category. If OASIS pick this up then people will want to use this binding so
> we should look at it. We can then probably give OASIS some good feedback on
> how to improve the spec. In the PHP SCA implementation we had a similar
> "REST" binding and people quite liked it. Don't have an opinion on basing
> the Web2.0 bindings on it.
>
> Simon
>
+1 to that, implementing specs while they're being drafted at OASIS and
giving feedback to the spec guys is something we supposed to be doing isn't
it?
...ant
Re: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
The OASIS bindings TC has now agreed to work on a binding.http
specification, and an initial spec draft is available, see:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200811/msg00054.html
...ant
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:39 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just an FYI on whats happening with this is OASIS - the decision to accept
> it into the Bindings TC was postponed for a week - see
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00094.html
>
> ...ant
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:00 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Excellent, thanks Dan.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I've not read the OSOA HTTP binding spec, but I do have some Tuscany
>>> experience with the HTTP and Atom bindings. I am especially interested in
>>> their support for caching and conditional commands.
>>>
>>> I gladly would like to help out on this one.
>>>
>>>
>>> Simon Laws wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I briefly read the draft. My impression is that it tries to come up
>>>>> some
>>>>> sort of poor-man's Web Service support over HTTP using RPC style
>>>>> (tunneling
>>>>> the invocations over HTTP). What are the advantages over SOAP/HTTP or
>>>>> JSONRPC/HTTP? I'm wondering if it would be better to focus on the REST
>>>>> style
>>>>> by mapping HTTP methods into a set of business operations that deal
>>>>> with
>>>>> resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Raymond
>>>>>
>>>>> From: ant elder
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:50 AM
>>>>> To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A draft spec for an HTTP binding has been posted to the OASIS bindings
>>>>> mailing list -
>>>>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00078.html
>>>>>
>>>>> It has some interesting things such as using the new wireFormat element
>>>>> and
>>>>> the suggestion that you could extend that for atom and json support.
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> interested in doing an implementation of this spec, anyone interested
>>>>> in
>>>>> helping?
>>>>>
>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I think this will fall into the different strokes for different folks
>>>> category. If OASIS pick this up then people will want to use this
>>>> binding so
>>>> we should look at it. We can then probably give OASIS some good feedback
>>>> on
>>>> how to improve the spec. In the PHP SCA implementation we had a similar
>>>> "REST" binding and people quite liked it. Don't have an opinion on
>>>> basing
>>>> the Web2.0 bindings on it.
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks, Dan Becker
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Just an FYI on whats happening with this is OASIS - the decision to accept
it into the Bindings TC was postponed for a week - see
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00094.html
...ant
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:00 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent, thanks Dan.
>
> ...ant
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I've not read the OSOA HTTP binding spec, but I do have some Tuscany
>> experience with the HTTP and Atom bindings. I am especially interested in
>> their support for caching and conditional commands.
>>
>> I gladly would like to help out on this one.
>>
>>
>> Simon Laws wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I briefly read the draft. My impression is that it tries to come up some
>>>> sort of poor-man's Web Service support over HTTP using RPC style
>>>> (tunneling
>>>> the invocations over HTTP). What are the advantages over SOAP/HTTP or
>>>> JSONRPC/HTTP? I'm wondering if it would be better to focus on the REST
>>>> style
>>>> by mapping HTTP methods into a set of business operations that deal with
>>>> resources.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Raymond
>>>>
>>>> From: ant elder
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:50 AM
>>>> To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A draft spec for an HTTP binding has been posted to the OASIS bindings
>>>> mailing list -
>>>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00078.html
>>>>
>>>> It has some interesting things such as using the new wireFormat element
>>>> and
>>>> the suggestion that you could extend that for atom and json support. I'm
>>>> interested in doing an implementation of this spec, anyone interested in
>>>> helping?
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think this will fall into the different strokes for different folks
>>> category. If OASIS pick this up then people will want to use this binding
>>> so
>>> we should look at it. We can then probably give OASIS some good feedback
>>> on
>>> how to improve the spec. In the PHP SCA implementation we had a similar
>>> "REST" binding and people quite liked it. Don't have an opinion on basing
>>> the Web2.0 bindings on it.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks, Dan Becker
>>
>
>
Re: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Excellent, thanks Dan.
...ant
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've not read the OSOA HTTP binding spec, but I do have some Tuscany
> experience with the HTTP and Atom bindings. I am especially interested in
> their support for caching and conditional commands.
>
> I gladly would like to help out on this one.
>
>
> Simon Laws wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I briefly read the draft. My impression is that it tries to come up some
>>> sort of poor-man's Web Service support over HTTP using RPC style
>>> (tunneling
>>> the invocations over HTTP). What are the advantages over SOAP/HTTP or
>>> JSONRPC/HTTP? I'm wondering if it would be better to focus on the REST
>>> style
>>> by mapping HTTP methods into a set of business operations that deal with
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Raymond
>>>
>>> From: ant elder
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:50 AM
>>> To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
>>> Subject: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A draft spec for an HTTP binding has been posted to the OASIS bindings
>>> mailing list -
>>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00078.html
>>>
>>> It has some interesting things such as using the new wireFormat element
>>> and
>>> the suggestion that you could extend that for atom and json support. I'm
>>> interested in doing an implementation of this spec, anyone interested in
>>> helping?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>>
>> I think this will fall into the different strokes for different folks
>> category. If OASIS pick this up then people will want to use this binding
>> so
>> we should look at it. We can then probably give OASIS some good feedback
>> on
>> how to improve the spec. In the PHP SCA implementation we had a similar
>> "REST" binding and people quite liked it. Don't have an opinion on basing
>> the Web2.0 bindings on it.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks, Dan Becker
>
Re: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've not read the OSOA HTTP binding spec, but I do have some Tuscany
> experience with the HTTP and Atom bindings. I am especially interested in
> their support for caching and conditional commands.
>
> I gladly would like to help out on this one.
>
>
> Simon Laws wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I briefly read the draft. My impression is that it tries to come up some
>>> sort of poor-man's Web Service support over HTTP using RPC style
>>> (tunneling
>>> the invocations over HTTP). What are the advantages over SOAP/HTTP or
>>> JSONRPC/HTTP? I'm wondering if it would be better to focus on the REST
>>> style
>>> by mapping HTTP methods into a set of business operations that deal with
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Raymond
>>>
>>> From: ant elder
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:50 AM
>>> To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
>>> Subject: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A draft spec for an HTTP binding has been posted to the OASIS bindings
>>> mailing list -
>>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00078.html
>>>
>>> It has some interesting things such as using the new wireFormat element
>>> and
>>> the suggestion that you could extend that for atom and json support. I'm
>>> interested in doing an implementation of this spec, anyone interested in
>>> helping?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>>
>> I think this will fall into the different strokes for different folks
>> category. If OASIS pick this up then people will want to use this binding
>> so
>> we should look at it. We can then probably give OASIS some good feedback
>> on
>> how to improve the spec. In the PHP SCA implementation we had a similar
>> "REST" binding and people quite liked it. Don't have an opinion on basing
>> the Web2.0 bindings on it.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks, Dan Becker
>
Sounds good Dan. I should point out that, in my previous post, I wasn't
suggesting that we should wait until someone asks us for this. I was trying
to say it's often an advantage to have several different approaches. Gives
us a wide view on what works and what doesn't
Simon
Re: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
Posted by Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>.
I've not read the OSOA HTTP binding spec, but I do have some Tuscany
experience with the HTTP and Atom bindings. I am especially interested
in their support for caching and conditional commands.
I gladly would like to help out on this one.
Simon Laws wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I briefly read the draft. My impression is that it tries to come up some
>> sort of poor-man's Web Service support over HTTP using RPC style (tunneling
>> the invocations over HTTP). What are the advantages over SOAP/HTTP or
>> JSONRPC/HTTP? I'm wondering if it would be better to focus on the REST style
>> by mapping HTTP methods into a set of business operations that deal with
>> resources.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
>> From: ant elder
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:50 AM
>> To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
>> Subject: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
>>
>>
>>
>> A draft spec for an HTTP binding has been posted to the OASIS bindings
>> mailing list -
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00078.html
>>
>> It has some interesting things such as using the new wireFormat element and
>> the suggestion that you could extend that for atom and json support. I'm
>> interested in doing an implementation of this spec, anyone interested in
>> helping?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> I think this will fall into the different strokes for different folks
> category. If OASIS pick this up then people will want to use this binding so
> we should look at it. We can then probably give OASIS some good feedback on
> how to improve the spec. In the PHP SCA implementation we had a similar
> "REST" binding and people quite liked it. Don't have an opinion on basing
> the Web2.0 bindings on it.
>
> Simon
>
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
Re: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I briefly read the draft. My impression is that it tries to come up some
> sort of poor-man's Web Service support over HTTP using RPC style (tunneling
> the invocations over HTTP). What are the advantages over SOAP/HTTP or
> JSONRPC/HTTP? I'm wondering if it would be better to focus on the REST style
> by mapping HTTP methods into a set of business operations that deal with
> resources.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> From: ant elder
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:50 AM
> To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
> Subject: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
>
>
>
> A draft spec for an HTTP binding has been posted to the OASIS bindings
> mailing list -
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00078.html
>
> It has some interesting things such as using the new wireFormat element and
> the suggestion that you could extend that for atom and json support. I'm
> interested in doing an implementation of this spec, anyone interested in
> helping?
>
> ...ant
>
I think this will fall into the different strokes for different folks
category. If OASIS pick this up then people will want to use this binding so
we should look at it. We can then probably give OASIS some good feedback on
how to improve the spec. In the PHP SCA implementation we had a similar
"REST" binding and people quite liked it. Don't have an opinion on basing
the Web2.0 bindings on it.
Simon
Re: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
I briefly read the draft. My impression is that it tries to come up some
sort of poor-man's Web Service support over HTTP using RPC style (tunneling
the invocations over HTTP). What are the advantages over SOAP/HTTP or
JSONRPC/HTTP? I'm wondering if it would be better to focus on the REST style
by mapping HTTP methods into a set of business operations that deal with
resources.
Thanks,
Raymond
From: ant elder
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:50 AM
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Draft OASIS spec for binding.http
A draft spec for an HTTP binding has been posted to the OASIS bindings
mailing list -
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00078.html
It has some interesting things such as using the new wireFormat element and
the suggestion that you could extend that for atom and json support. I'm
interested in doing an implementation of this spec, anyone interested in
helping?
...ant