tuscany-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Deprecating Binding.HTTP
Date Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:58:06 GMT
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Simon Laws <simonslaws@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Binding REST was originally created as a copy of Binding HTTP and it
>> has been enhanced to a great extent without really removing any of the
>> native Binding HTTP functionality.
>> I was wondering what are people thoughts on deprecating the current
>> Binding.HTTP, and make the runtime to "proxy" all binding.http to
>> binding.rest.
>> Thoughts ?
>> --
>> Luciano Resende
>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
>> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> Hi Luciano
> Not sure what you mean by deprecating here. Are you suggesting getting
> rid of binding.http altogether or keeping binding.http but using the
> rest binding code to implement it?
> My concern about binding.http is that It's not clear (to me at least)
> what's going to happen with binding.http at OASIS. There is an old
> draft spec but I don't seen any discussion about whether this is going
> to be further developed or whether something else will be created in
> its place. Assuming that OASIS have a binding.http it would seem
> sensible for Tuscany to have an implementation.

I think i saw in some oasis meeting minutes recently where that there
was some movement on the http binding, i'll go ask.

I think we should have some sort of http binding and leave the the
rest binding to only deal with real REST style things. For example,
REST operations shouldn't really have something like an opertaion or
method name encoded in the url so somethng like
http://localhost:8085/EchoService?method=echo&msg=Hello would be
better on an http binding instead of the rest one. Another example is
back in 1.x we have both binding.jsonrpc and a wireformat.jsonrpc on
binding.http don't we? That seems like a good thing to do again in 2.x
with binding.http to me.


View raw message