Copyright © @@@@ W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
This document specifies how SOAP should bind to a messaging system that supports the Java™ Message Service (JMS) [Java Message Service]. Binding is specified for both SOAP 1.1 [SOAP 1.1] and SOAP 1.2 [SOAP 1.2 Messaging Framework] using the SOAP 1.2 Protocol Binding Framework.
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Out of Scope
1.3 Context
1.4 Notational Conventions
1.4.1 XML Namespaces
1.5 Conformance
2. The SOAP/JMS Underlying Protocol Binding
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Properties Affecting Binding
2.2.1 Connection to a destination
2.2.2 JMS Message Header properties
2.2.3 JMS Message properties
2.2.4 Binding of Properties to IRI
2.2.5 Other Properties
2.3 Authentication for SOAP/JMS
2.4 The JMS Message Body
2.5 Supported Message Exchange Patterns
2.5.1 Support for Topic destinations
2.6 Request-Response MEP
2.6.1 Behaviour of Requesting SOAP Node
2.6.1.1 Init
2.6.1.2 Requesting
2.6.1.3 Sending + Receiving
2.6.1.4 Success and Fail
2.6.2 Behaviour of Responding SOAP Node
2.6.2.1 Init
2.6.2.2 Receiving
2.6.2.3 Receiving + Sending
2.6.2.4 Success and Fail
2.7 One-way Message Exchange Pattern
2.7.1 Behaviour of Sending SOAP Node
2.7.2 Behaviour of Receiving SOAP Node
2.8 Faults
3. WSDL Usage
3.1 Overview
3.2 WSDL 1.1 Extensions Overview
3.3 WSDL 2.0 Extensions Overview
3.4 WSDL 1.1 Extensions Detail
3.4.1 Example
3.4.2 WSDL 1.1 Transport Identification
3.4.3 WSDL 1.1 SOAP Action
3.4.4 Specifying Properties In WSDL 1.1
3.4.5 Specifying Properties Via the JMS IRI
3.5 WSDL 2.0 Extensions Detail
3.6 Properties
3.6.1 Relationship to WSDL 2.0 Component Model
3.6.1.1 Precedence
A. References
B. SOAP/JMS Underlying Protocol Binding Examples (Non-Normative)
B.1 SOAP Request without attachments
B.2 SOAP Request with attachments
C. Acknowledgements (Non-Normative)
D. Change Log (Non-Normative)
The work described in this and related documents is aimed at a set of standards for the transport of SOAP messages over JMS [Java Message Service]. The main purpose is to ensure interoperability between the implementations of different Web services vendors. It should also enable customers to implement their own Web services for part of their infrastructure, and to have this interoperate with vendor provided Web services. The main audience will be implementers of Web services stacks; in particular people who wish to extend a Web services stack with an implementation of SOAP/JMS. It should enable them to write a SOAP/JMS implementation that will interoperate with other SOAP/JMS implementations, and that will not be dependent on any specific JMS implementation.
A motivational example is a customer who has different departments that use Web services infrastructure from two different vendors, VendorA and VendorB. The customer has a need for reliable Web services interaction between the departments. Where both these vendors provide support for SOAP/JMS according to this standard, it should be possible for a client running using VendorA to interoperate with a service using VendorB.
The standards will also be of interest to providers of Web services intermediary services such as routing gateways; or SOAP/HTTP to SOAP/JMS gateways. We do not discuss any details of how such gateways should be designed and configured, but adherence to the standard will help the gateway ensure proper interoperation with SOAP/JMS clients and services.
The documents cover three major areas.
The JMS calls that must be made to construct and interpret SOAP/JMS messages in 2. The SOAP/JMS Underlying Protocol Binding.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Note that we never actually specify JMS calls in our documentation. Do we want to add "must be implicitly made". Later on we mention "implicitly" |
The WSDL binding that may be used to describe SOAP/JMS services in 3. WSDL Usage.
The IRI specification for JMS endpoints [URI Scheme for JMS] to be used by SOAP/JMS implementations (and potentially in other areas where a JMS IRI is required).
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Minor Is "to be" weak? Is "that must be" better?. |
Note that the IRI specification is in a separate document.
It is important to stress what this standard does NOT provide.
It does NOT provide any mechanism for interoperation between two different JMS providers. In the example above, VendorA and VendorB are different providers of a Web services infrastructure, but the customer must still use a single implementation of JMS at both client and service side.
It does NOT define any (wire) format for SOAP/JMS messages.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Testing Angle: So, unlike other standards that specify wire-format and that validate conformance by intermediarys e.g. TCP proxys for WS-I SOAP/HTTP, we need to have some kind of facade/interceptor at the JMS level probably at the points in which messages are published and consumed - i.e. send, receive, onMessage listener at which to record and verify the interractions and properties. |
It does NOT define how the Web services themselves will be presented to the application programmer. For example, it does not describe how the programmer will characterise a one-way message.
This document specifies how SOAP should bind to a messaging system that supports the Java™ Message Service (JMS) [Java Message Service]. Binding is specified for both SOAP 1.1 [SOAP 1.1] and SOAP 1.2 [SOAP 1.2 Messaging Framework] using the SOAP 1.2 Protocol Binding Framework.
The approach taken for this specification is to model it on the binding specifications that have been created for SOAP 1.2. The first of these was for a SOAP HTTP Binding, described in section 7, SOAP HTTP binding, [SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts]. A second binding for Email [SOAP 1.2 Email Binding] is also available.
The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [IETF RFC 2119].
Parenthetic remarks about fault subcodes are mentioned throughout the document where a conformance issue may result in a error. How these subcodes should be treated is dealt with in the section "Faults".
This specification uses a number of namespace prefixes throughout; they are listed in Table 1-1. Properties are named with XML qualified names. Property values are determined by the Schema type of the property, as defined in the specification which introduces the property. Note that the choice of any namespace prefix is arbitrary and not semantically significant (see [XML Namespaces]).
Prefix | Namespace | Specification |
---|---|---|
soapjms | http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/soapjms | Defined by this specification |
xsd
|
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
| [XML Schema Structures] |
wsdl11 | http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ | [WSDL 1.1] |
wsdl20 | http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl | [WSDL 2.0 Core Language] |
wsoap | http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/soap | [WSDL 2.0 Adjuncts] |
wsdl11soap11 | http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/ | [WSDL 1.1] |
wsdl11soap12 | http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap12/ | [WSDL 1.1 for SOAP 1.2] |
The binding defined by this specification is identified
by the XML namespace URI [XML Namespaces]
http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/soapjms
.
It is the intent of the W3C SOAP JMS Binding Working Group that the SOAP over Java™ Message Service 1.0 XML namespace URI will not change arbitrarily with each subsequent revision of the corresponding XML Schema documents as the specifications transition through Candidate Recommendation, Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation status. However, should the specifications revert to Working Draft status, and a subsequent revision, published as a WD, CR or PR draft, results in non-backwardly compatible changes from a previously published WD, CR or PR draft of the specification, the namespace URI will be changed accordingly.
Editorial note: plh | 20080501 |
The above paragraph will need to be removed for the publication of the Recommendation. |
A conforming implementation MUST implement the requirements as specified in 2. The SOAP/JMS Underlying Protocol Binding. To the extent required by that section, conforming implementations MUST support the [URI Scheme for JMS], specifically the syntax manipulations required therein.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
2 strong assertions. |
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
So this is an optional section for our test suite. It's not spelt out what "support" means - e.g. I suspect the first answer is the ability to consume WSDL a SOAP/JMS WS Client. The ability to publish these WSDLs if that's what your framework claims testable is next. Todo check WSDL2.0 precedent |
This section covers the SOAP/JMS binding, and implicitly the JMS calls that must be made. Many people may think of the JMS calls as the SOAP/JMS message format. This is almost correct, but not completely. JMS is strictly an API and does not define a message format. Also, this document covers how the SOAP/JMS implementation connects to the JMS service and selects the appropriate destination.
This part covers details such as how JMS connections and destinations should be handled. It also covers the message content, including how properties and headers such as priority, soapAction and targetService should be handled within the SOAP/JMS implementation.
There are a number of properties that affect how the binding behaves. The following properties are grouped into related sets. A conforming implementation must support all these properties.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertion. |
Properties can be obtained from a number of sources:
The JMS IRI (which may be specified in the WSDL, programmatically, on the command line etc.);
WSDL elements or attributes (in addition to the endpoint IRI), and;
The environment (for example local program variables, system environment variables etc).
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions. Testable. What does the last sentence mean ? |
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertion. Testable |
Since the underlying JMS IRI scheme defines an open-ended scheme for identifying and connecting to destination, it is not possible to enumerate all the ways that connection information may be set. However, in the interest of specifying context information such as JNDI connection properties in such a way that they can apply to multiple services or endpoints, this specification enumerates specific properties.
Specifies the technique to use for looking up the given destination name.
Must be specified in the JMS IRI, as the jms-variant
portion of the syntax.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertion. Testable. |
Specifies the name of the destination, for lookup as per the lookupVariant. If the variant is "jndi", this is the Java Naming and Directory Interface (JNDI) name of the destination (queue or topic). If the variant is "context", then the name is discovered via application context.
MUST be specified in JMS IRI, as the jms-dest
portion of the syntax.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertion. Testable. |
Specifies the JNDI name of the connection factory.
an optional property
MAY be specified in JMS IRI, WSDL, or somewhere else in the environment
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Optional property. Implied assertion is that if specified, then the use of the property is as specificed above. Testable. |
Specifies the fully qualified Java class name of the
InitialContextFactory
to use. This is mapped to the
javax.naming.Context.INITIAL_CONTEXT_FACTORY
property to be set in
the HashMap
sent to an InitialContext
constructor.
an optional property
MAY be specified in JMS IRI, WSDL, or somewhere else in the environment
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Optional property, etc Testable |
Specifies the JNDI provider URL, which is mapped to the
java.naming.provider.url
property to be set in the HashMap
sent to an InitialContext
constructor.
an optional property
MAY be specified in JMS IRI, WSDL, or somewhere else in the environment
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Optional property, etc. Testable |
This set of properties provide information that will set the values of corresponding JMS Header fields. This specification assumes that the JMS provider validates the values set for the respective message header properties, rather than being explicitly constrained by this specification.
indicates whether the request message is persistent or not. The valid values are "PERSISTENT" and "NONPERSISTENT". The default value is "PERSISTENT" (defaulted by JMS)
optional in IRI, optional in WSDL, optional in environment
if specified MUST appear in the JMS message in the header named JMSDeliveryMode
.
If the value of this property is "PERSISTENT" then the JMSDeliveryMode
integer value must be
set to DeliveryMode.PERSISTENT
. If the value of this property is "NONPERSISTENT" then the
JMSDeliveryMode
integer value must be set to DeliveryMode.NONPERSISTENT
.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Optional property. Strong assertions on how the JMS Message property is assigned and defaults. Testable |
the lifetime, in milliseconds, of the request message. A value of 0 indicates an infinite lifetime. The default value is 0 (defaulted by JMS).
optional in IRI, optional in WSDL, optional in environment.
if specified, this is used to generate the value of the JMS header JMSExpiration
.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Optional property. Strong assertions on how the JMS Message property is assigned and defaults(I suppose that if the default is wrong it could be a JMS provider defect or a SOAP/JMS provider defect. Testable |
the JMS priority associated with the request message. Valid values are integers between 0 (lowest priority) and 9 (highest priority). The default value is 4 (defaulted by JMS).
optional in IRI, optional in WSDL, optional in environment
if specified MUST appear in the JMS message in the header named JMSPriority
.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Optional property. Strong assertions on how the JMS Message property is assigned and defaults. Testable |
Specifies the name of the destination to which a response message should be sent. If the replyToName property has a value it is used to lookup a destination using the lookupVariant. If the variant is "jndi", this is the Java Naming and Directory Interface (JNDI) name of the destination (queue or topic). If the variant is "context", then the name is discovered via application context.
optional in IRI, optional in WSDL, optional in environment
if specified, this is used to derive the value to be used in the JMS header JMSReplyTo
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
We have to test all the variants just like the original request. todo Do we mandate that JMSReplyTo is only for 2-Way MEPS |
Used by the service implementation to dispatch the service request.
optional in IRI
if specified MUST appear in the JMS message in the JMS property named SOAPJMS_targetService
.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Optional property. Strong assertion on how the JMS Message property is assigned. Testable |
Specifies the version of SOAP JMS binding that is being used.
fixed value "1.0" in the implementation, MUST appear in a JMS property named SOAPJMS_bindingVersion
.
[Definition: Fault subcode unrecognizedBindingVersion
if the value of this property does not match the fixed value.]
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
2 strong statements. Testable |
Note that the contentType
value also indicates the MIME type of the primary message payload. This message property, then, identifies whether
the message payload uses SOAP 1.1, SOAP 1.2, SOAP Messages With Attachments
[SOAP Messages with Attachments] or MTOM [SOAP 1.1 Binding for MTOM 1.0] [SOAP MTOM] as the primary payload.
Describes the content of the SOAP message, this has the same values as the MIME Content-Type specified for a SOAP message over HTTP [IETF RFC 2045].
If the value of the property is text/xml or application/soap+xml, a charset parameter may be present; if the value of the property is multipart/related, a type parameter may be present.
if the charset
parameter is specified it is checked to ensure that it matches
the encoding value from the supplied XML. If there is a mismatch then a fault is generated.
[Definition: Use fault subcode
contentTypeMismatch in the event that the values do not match.]
if no charset
parameter is supplied the charset MUST be inferred using the rules defined in appendix F,
Autodetection of Character Encodings
, [XML 1.0].
the type parameter MUST reflect the value specified in the Content-type part header for the first part (the SOAP body, so text/xml or application/xop+xml).
MUST appear in the JMS message in the JMS property named SOAPJMS_contentType
.
[Definition: Use fault subcode missingContentType
if the SOAPJMS_contentType
property is missing.]
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Several strong statements. Potentially a lot of testing. todo Do we need statements on minimal support for UTF-8. UTF-16, ByteOrderMark etc etc |
as with SOAP/HTTP
optional in WSDL, optional in environment
if specified MUST appear in the JMS message in the JMS property named SOAPJMS_soapAction
if using SOAP 1.2, and the contentType
property has an action
parameter, that parameter value MUST match this
SOAPJMS_soapAction
value. [Definition: Use fault subcode
mismatchedSoapAction if the SOAP 1.2 action
does not
match]
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Several strong statements. Testable |
This property indicates whether a SOAP/JMS message is a fault. For senders, this property should
be set to true when responding with a SOAP fault. When this property is true, the sending software
should include a JMS property named SOAPJMS_isFault
with a value of 1
.
For receivers, this property is derived from the JMS property named SOAPJMS_isFault
— if
present and containing a value of 1
, the value of soapjms:isFault is true. If omitted,
or present with a value of 0
, the value of soapjms:isFault is false.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions. Testable |
Specifies the JMS IRI of the service. The client MUST create this property which is derived from the supplied IRI. The client MUST remove the targetService query parameter if specified; SHOULD remove JMS Message Header properties; and MAY remove other query parameters (for example client security related properties).
a required property
MUST appear in the JMS message in the JMS property named SOAPJMS_requestIRI
.
[Definition: Use fault subcode missingRequestIRI if
the SOAPJMS_requestIRI
is missing from the message.]
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions. Testable |
Implementations of this specification need to allow for the setting of the above properties. Some properties, as mentioned above can be inferred from context, or provided by the application environment. Some might be put into WSDL. In many cases, it is desirable to represent those properties as part of a URL-like representation. To conform to the latest enhancements to support internationalization, this specification references the [URI Scheme for JMS]. In particular, this section describes how the properties above are used in the IRI [IETF RFC 3987]. Note that the IRI scheme also defines query parameters, and where the query parameter names are the same, the same meaning is intended here.
For brevity, properties are shown without the SOAPJMS
prefix.
The "IRI representation" column describes how the property is carried
in the IRI. The "Client treatment" column describes how the property
should be treated in the process of forming the
soapjms:requestIRI property. There are three options for this
column:
As-is — the client SHOULD leave the information in the IRI as is.
Should exclude — the client SHOULD exclude the information from the generated requestIRI .
Must exclude — the client MUST not include the information in the generated requestIRI.
Specification Property | IRI Representation | Client Treatment |
---|---|---|
deliveryMode | as deliveryMode query parameter | Should exclude |
destinationName | as jms-dest portion of IRI syntax | As-is |
jndiConnectionFactoryName | as jndiConnectionFactoryName query parameter | Should exclude |
jndiInitialContextFactory | as jndiInitialContextFactory query parameter | Should exclude |
jndiURL | as jndiURL query parameter | Should exclude |
replyToName | as replyToName query parameter | Must exclude |
priority | as priority query parameter | Should exclude |
targetService | as targetService query parameter | Must exclude |
timeToLive | as timeToLive query parameter | Should exclude |
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Lots of must statements as to what is left-over in the requestIRI by the client side. Lots of statements on how the IRI representation maps to properties. Testable on these 2 levels |
[Definition: Use fault subcode malformedRequestIRI
when the IRI violates the expected syntax.]. [Definition: Use fault subcode
targetServiceNotAllowedInRequestIRI when targetService
parameter is
included in the requestIRI).]
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
2 strong statements. Testable |
Security, and in particular authentication, is a critical concern in most if not all environments where this binding will be utilized. There are at least two places where authentication may need to occur — 1) authenticating to the registry (i.e. JNDI) where JMS Destinations are located, and 2) authenticating to the JMS system itself. Credentials such as usernames and passwords may be required to access directories and to obtain JMS Connections from ConnectionFactories. This specification does not mandate how an implementation should obtain these credentials, although typically they may be available as API parameters, environment variables, or in thread context storage.
Implementers of this binding should consider how to most appropriately expose authentication functionality to their users in a way that meshes smoothly with the models exposed by their environments.
Note:
Although technically possible, the specification of userid and/or password related properties in the IRI is not recommended.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Untestable? |
The contents of the JMS Message body MUST be the SOAP payload as a
JMS BytesMessage
. [Definition:
Use fault subcode unsupportedJMSMessageFormat when the arriving message format is
not supported by the application.]. The encoding will depend on whether the payload is simply a SOAP
Envelope or whether there are any attachments, and the JMS
"Content-type" header (section 3.3) will reflect this appropriately.
Editorial note: plh | 20080501 |
"section 3.3" (in paragraph above) doesn't seem to lead to the right place?!? |
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions. Testable |
In the case of a message without any attachments, the JMS Message Body will contain the properly encoded bytes of the XML SOAP message, and nothing else. In this case the Content-type will be "text/xml" (for SOAP 1.1) or "application/soap+xml" (for SOAP 1.2).
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions. Testable |
In the case that there are attachments, the JMS Message Body will contain a multipart MIME message. The first thing encountered in byte stream MUST be the MIME boundary for the start of the first part — what MIME Part One [IETF RFC 2045] section 2.5 calls a "Body Part". The message will be encoded using SOAP Messages with Attachments [SOAP Messages with Attachments] or XOP [SOAP 1.1 Binding for MTOM 1.0] [SOAP MTOM], in either case with a Content-type of "multipart/related".
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions. Testable |
An instance of a binding to JMS conforming to this binding specification MUST support the following message exchange patterns:
Request-Response
One-way
In the case of SOAP 1.2 a conforming SOAP-JMS Binding instance MUST support the following message exchange patterns:
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response/
(defined in section 6.2, Request-Response
Message Exchange Pattern,
[SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts])
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/soap/mep/one-way/
(defined in
[SOAP 1.2 Part 3: One-Way MEP])
In the case of SOAP 1.1 there is no formal specification of Message Exchange Patterns. A conforming SOAP-JMS Binding instance MUST support both the generic "request/response" and "one-way" patterns and in the case of SOAP 1.1 are specified in this document. Relevant information on how SOAP 1.1 should bind to HTTP is specified in that specification [SOAP 1.1].
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions. Testable. "should bind to HTTP" is this relevant? |
There are tables of JMS properties, and explanations of their values, in the remainder of this section. Note that only the relevant properties (i.e. ones affected by this specification) have been included — other properties will continue to follow the normal JMS specification. For instance, the JMSMessageID header will be present on all messages, and automatically generated by the underlying JMS implementation.
Topics may be used as destinations for SOAP messages over JMS. However, due to the potential complexities around how topics might interact with message-exchange patterns, this specification provides no guidelines as to how that message exchange might work. In particular, the "request-response" exchange clearly means something different when an unknown number of responses might be received. Even the "one-way" exchange over a JMS topic differs in subtle ways from the same exchange over HTTP, including the fundamental question of whether the message is received at all, by any listeners.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Testing optional - 1-ways perhaps |
For these reasons, implementers and clients of this specification are advised to use caution when dealing with JMS topics. We strongly encourage implementers to carefully document their choices around the use and support of topic destinations.
The
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response/
message pattern is described in section 6.2, Request-Response
Message Exchange Pattern, [SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts].
For binding instances conforming to this specification:
A SOAP Node instantiated at the JMS interface (sending and
receiving) may take on the role (i.e. the property http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/Role
)
of RequestingSOAPNode
.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
"sending and receiving" confuses - omit ? Same comment below. |
A SOAP Node instantiated at the JMS interface (sending and
receiving) may take on the role (i.e. the property http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/Role
) of
RespondingSOAPNode
.
The remainder of this section consists of descriptions of the MEP
state machine. In the state descriptions following, the states are
defined as values for the property http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/State
.
Failure reasons as specified in the tables represent values of the
property http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/FailureReason
-
their values are qualified names. If an implementation enters the "Fail" state,
the http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/FailureReason
property will contain the value specified for the particular transition.
The overall flow of the behaviour of a Requesting SOAP Node follows the outline state machine description contained in section 6.2, Request-Response Message Exchange Pattern, [SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts]. The following subsections describe each state in more detail and apply to both SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 until stated otherwise.
In the "Init" state, a JMS request is formulated and transmission
of the request is initiated. The message must be created as a JMS
BytesMessage
as per section 4 above. A number of the message
header properties are implicitly created by the use of the JMS api,
the following table specifies how the properties described earlier
explicitly affect the message constructed.
Editorial note: plh | 20080501 |
"section 4" (in paragraph above) doesn't seem to lead to the right place?!? |
Field | Value Set by Conforming Client |
---|---|
JMS Message Header | |
JMSDeliveryMode | the value of the deliveryMode property or not set if not specified |
JMSExpiration | calculated from the value of the timeToLive property or not set if not specified |
JMSPriority | the value of the priority property or not set if not specified |
JMSDestination | derived from the destinationName property |
JMSReplyTo | if the replyToName property is specified, this is the JMS Destination object derived from that name. Otherwise the implementation must determine the reply queue, and use the JMS Destination object which represents that queue; the queue may be a temporary queue generated as described in the JMS specification. |
JMS Message properties | |
SOAPJMS_requestIRI | this is derived from the requestIRI property |
SOAPJMS_bindingVersion | this is copied from the bindingVersion property |
SOAPJMS_soapAction | the value of the soapAction property or not set if not specified |
SOAPJMS_targetService | the value of the targetService property or not set if not specified |
SOAPJMS_contentType | inferred from the SOAP Envelope and presence of attachments |
JMS Message Body | |
body | A SOAP envelope is serialized according to the media type specified in the JMS Message property SOAPJMS_contentType |
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions. Testable.. |
In the "Requesting" state, sending of the request continues while
waiting for the start of the correlated response message. A
correlated response message is one where the value of the
JMSCorrelationID
header field is the same as the value of the
JMSMessageID
of the request message. The response message
will be received on the JMS Destination specified in the
JMSReplyTo
header above, and that Destination is where
implementations should be listening.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertion that JMSCorrelationID is required. |
If a correlated response message is received then a transition to "Sending + Receiving" is made.
If, for whatever reason (for example a timeout), no correlated
response message is received then a failure reason
receptionFailure
is set and a transition to "Fail" is
made.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertion. In practice the JMS receive call gets a timeout. Testable |
Receive a correlated message body that is assumed to contain a
SOAP envelope serialised according to the rules for carrying a SOAP
message in the media type specified in the JMS Message property
SOAPJMS_contentType
.
If a well formed response message is received a transition to "Success" is made.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertion about well formed. Testable. |
The overall flow of the behaviour of a Responding SOAP Node follows the outline state machine description contained in section 6.2, Request-Response Message Exchange Pattern, [SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts]. The following subsections describe each state in more detail and apply to both SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 until stated otherwise.
Receive and validate the inbound request message.
If a well formed request message is received a transition to the local SOAP node is made followed by a transition to the "Receiving" state.
If a malformed request message is received a transition to "Fail" is made.
Waiting for Response Message to become available in Message Exchange Context as a result of processing the Request Message (note Request Message fully received on exit from Init state).
Completing Request Message reception and Response Message transmission. (Response Message sent on exit from Receiving State).
The JMS request is formulated and transmission of the response is
initiated. The message must be created as a JMS BytesMessage
.
A number of the message header properties are implicitly created by
the use of the JMS api, the following table specifies how the
properties described earlier explicitly affect the message
constructed. The message MUST be sent to the JMS Destination in the
JMSReplyTo
header of the Request Message. The value of the
JMSCorrelationID
header field MUST be set to the same as the
value of the JMSMessageID
of the request message.
Field | Value Set by Conforming Client |
---|---|
JMS Message Header | |
JMSDeliveryMode | this SHOULD be the same as that specified on the request |
JMSExpiration | this is derived from the request. It is up to the responding node to decide whether to degrade for processing time. |
JMSPriority | this is copied from the request |
JMSCorrelationID | this is copied from the request JMSMessageID |
JMSDestination | this is copied from the JMSReplyTo property in the request |
JMS Message properties | |
SOAPJMS_requestIRI | this is copied from the requestIRI property in the request message |
SOAPJMS_bindingVersion | this is copied from the bindingVersion property |
SOAPJMS_contentType | inferred from the SOAP Envelope and presence of attachments. |
JMS Message Body | |
body | A SOAP envelope is serialized according to the media type specified in the JMS Message property SOAPJMS_contentType . |
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions. Testable.. |
If a response message is successfully sent a transition to the "Success" state is made.
If there is a failure to send a response message then failure
reason transmissionFailure
is set and a transition to
"Fail" is made.
The SOAP One-way MEP [SOAP 1.2 Part 3: One-Way MEP] defines properties for the exchange of a SOAP/JMS message which does not solicit a response. For JMS messages sent to a Queue destination this MEP results in a SOAP message which may be received by zero or one receiver. For JMS messages sent to a Topic destination this MEP results in SOAP message(s) which may be received by zero, one, or many receivers.
This message exchange pattern is identified by the URI
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/soap/mep/one-way/
.
For binding instances conforming to this specification:
A SOAP Node instantiated at the sending JMS interface may
take on the role (i.e. the property
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/Role
,
defined in Table 2, Property
definitions supporting the description of MEPs), of
SendingSOAPNode
.
A SOAP Node instantiated at the receiving JMS interface takes
on the role (i.e. the property
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/Role
)
of ReceivingSOAPNode
.
The remainder of this section consists of descriptions of the MEP. Failure reasons represent values of the
property http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/FailureReason
— their values are qualified names. If a MEP instance terminates with an fault, then the
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/FailureReason
property will contain an value identifying the fault.
The sending node MUST formulate a JMS request, make it available in the http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage property, and send it to the destination identified by http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/ImmediateDestination.
The message must be created as a JMS BytesMessage
as per section
4 above. A number of the message header properties are implicitly created by
the use of the JMS API, the following table specifies how the properties described
earlier explicitly affect the message constructed.
If the Sender receives a message transmission failure, then the
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/FailureReason
property
is set to transmissionFailure
and the message exchange is terminated with a fault.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertion. I'm familiar with the SOAP1.1 1-way can a SOAP 1.2 1-way return faults to the client, or is it fire and forget |
Field | Value Set by Conforming Client |
---|---|
JMS Message Header | |
JMSDeliveryMode | the value of the deliveryMode property or not set if not specified |
JMSExpiration | calculated from the value of the timeToLive property or not set if not specified |
JMSPriority | the value of the priority property or not set if not specified |
JMSDestination | derived from the destinationName property |
JMS Message properties | |
SOAPJMS_requestIRI | this is derived from the requestIRI property |
SOAPJMS_bindingVersion | this is copied from the bindingVersion property |
SOAPJMS_soapAction | the value of the soapAction property or not set if not specified |
SOAPJMS_targetService | the value of the targetService property or not set if not specified |
SOAPJMS_contentType | inferred from the SOAP Envelope and presence of attachments. |
JMS Message Body | |
body | A SOAP envelope is serialized according to the media type specified in the JMS Message property SOAPJMS_contentType . |
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions. Testable.. |
A receiving node MUST validate an inbound message, and if it determines that the message is successfully received, it MUST populate http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/InboundMessage with the received message. It MUST then process the message in http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/InboundMessage
If the Receiving SOAP Node receives a message receipt failure, or the inbound message is not valid
then the http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/FailureReason
property MAY be set to transmissionFailure
. The message exchange should terminate, and
control over the message exchange context should return to the local SOAP node. (Note, however, that in many
cases where receipt is unsuccessful, information identifying the message or its sender may be unreliable,
in which case there may be little if any value in reflecting a message-specific fault.)
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Untestable? |
The SOAP fault subcodes listed throughout this document, and consolidated here, include:
inconsistentMEP
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
No strong assertions here about whether they are required. Do we need assertions ? Implied assertion could be that under failure conditions X,Y,Z faults A,B,C are produced. Testable. |
The above subcodes are the local name in the soapjms
namespace,
appearing, for example, as soapjms:malformedRequestIRI.
In SOAP 1.2, the subcodes above are used as-is in the env:Value
element of the env:Subcode
for a SOAP Fault. The following shows
an example of a SOAP 1.2 Fault payload with the
contentTypeMismatch
subcode:
Example 2-1. SOAP 1.2 Fault payload with the contentTypeMismatch subcode
<env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope" xmlns:soapjms="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/soapjms" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"> <env:Body> <env:Fault> <env:Code> <env:Value>env:Sender</env:Value> <env:Subcode> <env:Value>soapjms:contentTypeMismatch</env:Value> </env:Subcode> </env:Code> <env:Reason> <env:Text xml:lang="en">The content type of the JMS payload does not match the XML.</env:Text> </env:Reason> <env:Detail> <m:MaxTime>P5M</m:MaxTime> </env:Detail> </env:Fault> </env:Body> </env:Envelope>
This specification does not mandate any particular text for the
env:Text
child element of the env:Reason
element.
The SOAP 1.1 specification does not support subcodes directly. In
that scenario, the detail
element should have a single child
element with the namespace and local name of that matches the subcode
for SOAP 1.2. The same error as above, shown in SOAP 1.1:
Example 2-2. SOAP 1.1 Fault payload with the contentTypeMismatch subcode
<env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"> <env:Body> <env:Fault> <faultcode>SOAP-ENV:Client</faultcode> <faultstring>Client Error</faultstring> <detail> <soapjms:contentTypeMismatch xmlns:soapjms="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/soapjms" /> </detail> </env:Fault> </env:Body> </env:Envelope>
An implementation MAY choose to put a textual description as the
contents of the element within the detail
section. A portion of
the above example with this change follows:
<env:detail> <soapjms:contentTypeMismatch xmlns:soapjms="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/soapjms"> The content type of the JMS payload does not match the XML. </soapjms:contentTypeMismatch> </env:detail>
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
These look like standard SOAP fault formatting details.All Testable |
These next sections describe how to indicate the use of SOAP over JMS in WSDL. We begin with complete examples, and then describe the individual pieces and parts in the sections which follow.
The associated SOAP Underlying Transport Binding above contains the actual rules by which SOAP messages are sent and received using the Java Message Service. This section indicates how WSDL can be used to indicate the use and control the operation of that binding.
For general information on extending SOAP bindings in WSDL, please refer section 3, SOAP Binding, WSDL 1.1. For information about accepted SOAP 1.2 bindings, see WSDL 1.1 for SOAP 1.2. For information about SOAP bindings in WSDL 2.0 see [WSDL 2.0 Adjuncts].
The transport attribute of the wsdl11soap11:binding
or
wsdl11soap12:binding
element gets a new URL reflecting a JMS transport.
Allows use of SOAPAction header, even though it is explicitly disallowed by WSDL specification.
Defines how to set various properties to control the behavior (connection parameters, runtime setting) of the binding.
Locates the service using a JMS IRI.
The wsoap:protocol
attribute of the binding element gets a new
URL reflecting a JMS transport.
Defines how to set various properties to control the behavior (connection parameters, runtime setting) of the binding.
Locates the service using a JMS IRI.
Note:
This section is non-normative.
The [WSDL 1.1] specification includes in section 1.2, WSDL Document Example, the example Example 1 SOAP 1.1 Request/Response via HTTP.
The following example illustrates a new service description which assumes the original service available over HTTP is also made available over JMS.
Lines 14-33 are a new binding for specifying that JMS is to be
used, line 15 shows the transport URI in <wsdl11soap11:binding>
, and
lines 17-22 show the extension properties in the <wsdl11soap11:binding>
.
Lines 40-42 are also additions to specify the location at which
this new implementation exists.
Line 41 shows the JMS IRI Scheme jms:
in the <wsdl11soap11::address>
.
Example 3-1. WSDL 1.1 JMS Binding
1 <wsdl11:binding name="StockQuoteSoapBinding" type="tns:StockQuotePortType"> 2 <wsdl11soap11:binding style="document" transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http"/> 3 <wsdl11:operation name="GetLastTradePrice"> 4 <wsdl11soap11:operation soapAction="http://example.com/GetLastTradePrice"/> 5 <wsdl11:input> 6 <wsdl11soap11:body use="literal"/> 7 </wsdl11:input> 8 <wsdl11:output> 9 <wsdl11soap11:body use="literal"/> 10 </wsdl11:output> 11 </wsdl11:operation> 12 </wsdl11:binding> 13 14 <wsdl11:binding name="StockQuoteSoapJMSBinding" type="tns:StockQuotePortType" xmlns:soapjms="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/soapjms"> 15 <wsdl11soap11:binding style="document" transport="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/soapjms"/> 16 17 <!-- We want this binding to use a particular CF class --> 18 <soapjms:jndiConnectionFactoryName> 19 sample.jms.ConnectionFactory 20 </soapjms:jndiConnectionFactoryName> 21 <!-- Specify PERSISTENT delivery mode --> 22 <soapjms:deliveryMode>PERSISTENT</soapjms:deliveryMode> 23 24 <wsdl11:operation name="GetLastTradePrice"> 25 <wsdl11soap11:operation soapAction="http://example.com/GetLastTradePrice"/> 26 <wsdl11:input> 27 <wsdl11soap11:body use="literal"/> 28 </wsdl11:input> 29 <wsdl11:output> 30 <wsdl11soap11:body use="literal"/> 31 </wsdl11:output> 32 </wsdl11:operation> 33 </wsdl11:binding> 34 35 <wsdl11:service name="StockQuoteService"> 36 <wsdl11:documentation>My first service</wsdl11:documentation> 37 <wsdl11:port name="StockQuotePort" binding="tns:StockQuoteSoapBinding"> 38 <wsdl11soap11:address location="http://example.com/stockquote"/> 39 </wsdl11:port> 40 <wsdl11:port name="StockQuotePort_jms" binding="tns:StockQuoteSoapJMSBinding"> 41 <wsdl11soap11:address location="jms:jndi:myQueue?targetService=stockquote"/> 42 </wsdl11:port> 43 </wsdl11:service>
The key points to notice are:
The transport URI in <wsdl11soap11:binding>
(line 15)
The jms: IRI in the <wsdl11soap11:address>
(line 41)
The extension properties in the <wsdl11soap11:binding>
(lines 17-22)
The wsdl11soap11:binding
element has a transport
attribute. The developer
indicates the use of the SOAP/JMS binding by putting
http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/soapjms
as the value
of the transport.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertion. Testable. |
The wsdl11soap11:operation
portion of the WSDL specification explicitly disallows use of the
soapAction
attribute in non-HTTP bindings. This specification
supersedes that requirement, and allows the use of soapAction
in
the wsdl11soap11:operation
element for SOAP/JMS bindings. This value
corresponds to the property soapAction.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertion. Testable. |
Various JMS properties described in the SOAP/JMS binding
specification may be set in three places in the WSDL — the binding,
the service, and the port. Values specified at the service will
propagate to all ports/endpoints. Values specified at the binding
will propagate to all ports/endpoints using that binding. For
example, the jndiInitialContextFactory may be indicated for a
wsdl11:service
, and it is then implied for all of the contained
wsdl11:port
elements.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions on where properties can appear. Testable. |
If a property is specified at multiple levels, the most specific
setting will take precedence (port first, then service, then binding).
In the following example, notice the timeToLive property — for
the quickPort
port, the value will be 10 (specified at the port
level). For the slowPort
port, the value will be 100 (specified at
the service level). The setting in the binding is, in this example,
always overridden.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions on precedence. Testable. |
Example 3-3. Specifying Properties in WSDL 1.1
<wsdl11:binding name="exampleBinding"> ... <soapjms:timeToLive>200</soapjms:timeToLive> </wsdl11:binding> <wsdl11:service name="exampleService"> <soapjms:jndiInitialContextFactory> com.example.jndi.InitialContextFactory </soapjms:jndiInitialContextFactory> <soapjms:timeTolive>100</soapjms:timeToLive> ... <wsdl11:port name="quickPort" binding="tns:exampleBinding"> ... <soapjms:timeToLive>10</soapjms:timeToLive> </wsdl11:port> <wsdl11:port name="slowPort" binding="tns:exampleBinding"> ... </wsdl11:port> </wsdl11:service>
Some of the above information can be put in the IRI [URI Scheme for JMS]. When expressing properties from the SOAP/JMS binding
in the IRI, you do not need the namespace prefix — just use the
property name, such as "priority
".
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Assertion about optional namespace. Testable. |
This IRI, in turn, is represented as the location
attribute
on the <wsdl11soap11:address>
element. Note that with SOAP 1.2, the same pattern applies, although
the "soap" prefix corresponds to the SOAP 1.2 binding namespace
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap12/
as established by
[WSDL 1.1 for SOAP 1.2]
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Assertion on where the IRI can appear. Testable. |
Properties expressed in the IRI [IETF RFC 3987] override any values set in the markup as described above.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertion. Testable. |
Section 3.4 WSDL 1.1 Extensions Detail illustrates how a service originally available over HTTP is made available over JMS using WSDL 1.1. This section illustrates how to indicate the configuration for using SOAP over JMS with WSDL 2.0
(01) <wsdl20:binding (02) name="StockQuoteSoapJMSBinding" interface="tns:StockQuoteInterface" (03) type="http://www.w3.org/2006/01/wsdl/soap" (04) wsoap:protocol="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/soapjms" xmlns:soapjms="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/soapjms"> (05) (06) <!-- We want this binding to use a particular CF class --> (07) <soapjms:jndiConnectionFactoryName> (08) sample.jms.ConnectionFactory (09) </soapjms:jndiConnectionFactoryName> (10) <!-- Specify PERSISTENT delivery mode --> (11) <soapjms:deliveryMode>PERSISTENT</soapjms:deliveryMode> (12) </wsdl20:binding> (13) (14) <wsdl20:service name="StockQuoteService" interface="tns:StockQuoteInterface"> (15) <wsdl20:documentation>My first service</wsdl20:documentation> (16) <wsdl20:endpoint name="SOAPHTTP" binding="tns:StockQuoteSoapHTTPBinding" (17) address="http://example.com/stockquote"/> (18) <wsdl20:endpoint name="JMS" binding="tns:StockQuoteSoapJMSBinding" (19) address="jms:jndi:myQueue/stockquote"/> (20) </wsdl20:service>
Line 4 shows the protocol URI in the wsoap:protocol
attribute of the <binding>
, which indicates that
this SOAP over JMS binding is in use.
Lines 7-11 show the use of WSDL 2.0 extension elements to set
some of the properties of the connection. In this case, you see
the <soapjms:jndiConnectionFactoryName>
and
<soapjms:deliveryMode>
elements defining the
values for the jndiConnectionFactoryName
and deliveryMode
properties. More generally, each allowed property may be
expressed as a WSDL 2.0 extension element, typed appropriately
for that property's value space. For example, on line 11 above,
<soapjms:deliveryMode>
is of type
xsd:string
. This XML representation then surfaces
in the WSDL 2.0 Component Model (see next section) as an
extension property.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Testable |
Lines 18-19 are also additions to specify the location at
which this new implementation exists. Line 19 showing the JMS
IRI Scheme jms:
in the address
attribute of the <endpoint>
element. As with
the WSDL 1.1 binding, you may also set connection properties in
the IRI.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Testable |
Table 3-1 lists the SOAP/JMS properties which are declarable in WSDL documents.
Property localName | Valid WSDL Locations |
---|---|
jndiConnectionFactoryName | service, port/endpoint, binding |
jndiInitialContextFactory | service, port/endpoint, binding |
jndiURL | service, port/endpoint, binding |
deliveryMode | service, port/endpoint, binding |
priority | service, port/endpoint, binding |
timeToLive | service, port/endpoint, binding |
replyToName | service, port/endpoint, binding |
soapAction | binding operation |
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Testable |
WSDL 2.0 is described abstractly in terms of a component model. Extensions such as the SOAP/JMS binding extend the predefined components with new properties and/or components.
For this specification, each property in the table above adds a WSDL Component Model Property with the same name to the containing WSDL 2.0 component. For instance, if the <deliveryMode> extension element appeared underneath the <service> element in a WSDL 2.0 description, it would result in a deliveryMode property added to the Service component.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Testable as per above |
Since the same property can be specified in multiple places, we need precedence rules, and in fact they are exactly as specified in section 3.4.4 Specifying Properties In WSDL 1.1. The most-specific setting overrides less-specific ones, so endpoint wins over service, which wins over binding. For a particular interaction, you may search for a given property on the Endpoint component, then Service, then Binding, taking whichever value you find first.
Editorial note: pse | 20080521 |
Strong assertions. Testable |
The JMS message consists of three parts, the first of these is the Message Header that contains a set of fields defined in the JMS specification, the second part is a set of properties that represent optional header fields the last part is the Message Body.
jms:jndi:news?targetService=current-affairs &jndiConnectionFactory=SOAPJMSFactory &deliveryMode=PERSISTENT &priority=8 &replyToName=interested &userprop=mystuff
The IRI in Example B-1 will become:
Field | value | comments |
---|---|---|
JMSMessage class | jms_bytes | a fixed value |
JMSType | null | |
JMSDeliveryMode | 2 | |
JMSExpiration | 0 | |
JMSPriority | 8 | |
JMSMessageID | ID:d438e0000001 | |
JMSTimestamp | 1092110476167 | |
JMSCorrelationID | null | |
JMSDestination | A Destination object | resolved by JNDI from the destination name news |
JMSReplyTo | A Destination object | resolved by JNDI from the destination name interested |
JMSRedelivered | false |
Field | value | comments |
---|---|---|
SOAPJMS_bindingVersion | 1.0 | |
SOAPJMS_targetService | current-affairs | this is derived from the targetService property |
SOAPJMS_requestIRI | jms:jndi:news?userprop=mystuff | this is derived from the requestIRI property |
SOAPJMS_contentType | application/soap+xml | inferred from the SOAP Envelope and absence of attachments. In this case it is SOAP 1.2 |
The following represents a human readable version of the JMS message body:
Example B-2. Representation of a JMS SOAP 1.2 Request without attachments
<env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope" xmlns='http://example.org/MyApplication' xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> <env:Body env:encodingStyle="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-encoding"> <postMessage> <ngName xsi:type="xsd:string">news.current.events</ngName> <msg xsi:type="xsd:string">This is a sample news item.</msg> </postMessage> </env:Body> </env:Envelope>
The IRI in Example B-1 will become:
Field | value | comments |
---|---|---|
JMSMessage class | jms_bytes | a fixed value |
JMSType | null | |
JMSDeliveryMode | 2 | |
JMSExpiration | 0 | |
JMSPriority | 8 | |
JMSMessageID | ID:d438e0000001 | |
JMSTimestamp | 1092110476167 | |
JMSCorrelationID | null | |
JMSDestination | A Destination object | resolved by JNDI from the destination name news |
JMSReplyTo | A Destination object | resolved by JNDI from the destination name interested |
JMSRedelivered | false |
Field | value | comments |
---|---|---|
SOAPJMS_bindingVersion | 1.0 | |
SOAPJMS_targetService | current-affairs | derived from the targetService property |
SOAPJMS_requestIRI | jms:jndi:news?userprop=mystuff | derived from the requestIRI property |
SOAPJMS_contentType | multipart/related type="application/xop+xml"; boundary="--MIME_boundary" | inferred from the SOAP Envelope and presence attachments. In this case it is SOAP 1.2 |
The following represents a human readable version of the JMS message body:
Example B-3. Representation of a JMS SOAP 1.2 Request with attachments
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Related;boundary=MIME_boundary; type="application/xop+xml"; start="<945414389.1092086011970>"; startinfo="application/soap+xml" --MIME_boundary Content-Type: application/xop+xml; charset=UTF-8; type="application/soap+xml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-ID: <945414389.1092086011970> <env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope" xmlns:xop='http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include' xmlns='http://example.org/MyApplication' xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xmlmime="http://www.w3.org/2005/05/xmlmime" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> <env:Body env:encodingStyle="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-encoding"> <postMessage> <ngName xsi:type="xsd:string">news.current.events</ngName> <msg xsi:type="xsd:string">This is a sample news item.</msg> <photo xmlmime:contentType='image/png'><xop:Include href='cid:http://example.org/photo.png'/></photo> </postMessage> </env:Body> </env:Envelope> --MIME_boundary Content-Type: image/png Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Id: <http://example.org/photo.png> [n lines omitted] --MIME_boundary
This document is the work of the W3C SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group.
Members of the Working Group are (at the time of writing, and by alphabetical order): Phil Adams (IBM Corporation), Glen Daniels (WSO2), Peter Easton (Progress Software), Mark Hapner (Sun Microsystems, Inc.), Eric Johnson (TIBCO Software, Inc.), Yves Lafon (W3C/ERCIM), Philippe Le Hégaret (W3C/MIT), Amelia Lewis (TIBCO Software, Inc.), Bhakti Mehta (Sun Microsystems, Inc.), Roland Merrick (IBM Corporation), Mark Phillips (IBM Corporation), Derek Rokicki (Software AG).
Previous members of the Working Group were: Dongbo Xiao.
The people who have contributed to discussions on public-soap-jms@w3.org are also gratefully acknowledged.
The original contributors to the SOAP over Java™ Message Service 1.0 W3C Member Submission: Phil Adams (IBM); Glen Daniels (WSO2); Peter Easton (Progress Software); Tim Frank (Software AG); Lei Jin (BEA Systems, Inc.); Eric Johnson (TIBCO Software Inc.); Vinod Kumar (BEA Systems, Inc.); Amelia A. Lewis (TIBCO Software Inc.); David Orchard (BEA Systems, Inc.); Roland Merrick (IBM); Mark Phillips (IBM); Stephen Todd (IBM); Dongbo Xiao (BEA Systems, Inc.) and Prasad Yendluri (Software AG).
Date | Editor | Description |
---|---|---|
2008-05-01 | plehegar | Using latest version for WSDL 2.0 references |
2008-05-01 | plehegar | Added support for CVS changelog |
2008-05-01 | plehegar | Moved section 2.9 into non-normative appendix. Updated the references section (now normative). Added table and example headers. Fixed/added bibref. Using SOAP 1.2 instead of SOAP 1.1 in example. Added XML Namespaces section. |
2008-04-22 | plehegar | New |