W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2006

Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:12:45 -0800
Message-ID: <43E0515D.1050701@oracle.com>
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
CC: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> Also, I hope that a 202 does not necessarily preclude a SOAP envelope in 
> the HTTP response.
> 

202 should not preclude a SOAP envelope in the HTTP response.
But such a soap envelope in the HTTP response should be considered quite 
different from a SOAP response sent with a 200 status code.

Most, if not all, implementations assume that a soap response with a 200 
status code to be correlated with the soap request sent in the HTTP 
request. Not necessarily so with a 202 status code. And this would be 
correct per the HTTP specs.

As Marc has pointed out, we need to say what can be expected, if 
anything, when a 202 response is received wrt the processing of the SOAP 
message in the HTTP request.

-Anish
--

> Cheers,
> 
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> phone: +1 508 377 9295
> 
> "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> wrote on 01/30/2006 04:56:58 PM:
> 
>  > Soap-Request-optional-soap-response vs
>  > soap-request-optional-protocol-response?  
>  > SOAP Request-optional-response vs SOAP
>  > request-optional-protocol-response?
>  >  
>  > I don't see why we need to distinguish between a SOAP response with 200
>  > vs with 202.  
>  >
>  > Another way of looking at this is there are 2 simultaneous and
>  > orthogonal changes going on:
>  > 1) adding 202 as a valid status code for the soap 1.1 http binding for
>  > request-response.
>  > 2) adding a one-way that allows for no soap response that uses 202 as
>  > the status code.
>  >
>  > Cheers,
>  > Dave
>  >
>  > > -----Original Message-----
>  > > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
>  > > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:59 PM
>  > > To: David Orchard
>  > > Cc: Mark Baker; Christopher B Ferris; WS-Addressing
>  > > Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc
>  > >
>  > > David Orchard wrote:
>  > > > There is a lot of level mixing going on.  I don't think that an
>  > optional
>  > > > SOAP response should be part of a "one-way" binding.  Sure, it might
>  > be
>  > > > a WSDL one-way, but we are talking about SOAP not WSDL.  SOAP
>  > > > definitions shouldn't be coupled up the stack to WSDL, and I'm
>  > against
>  > > > defining SOAP things in the context of WSDL.  SOAP shouldn't know
>  > > > anything about the stuff that is describing it, beit WSDL, Policy,
>  > > > Semantic Web, foo...
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > > I agree, that (WSDL-independence) is a fine goal to have.
>  > >
>  > > But, a SOAP response in a SOAP request-response exchange (status code
>  > > 200) is different from a SOAP response in a SOAP
>  > > request-optional-response exchange (status code 202) -- it should not
>  > be
>  > > construed that a SOAP request-optional-response exchange for the case
>  > > when the SOAP envelope is sent back in a 202 HTTP response is an
>  > > 'instance' of the SOAP request-response exchange. Perhaps there is a
>  > > better way to name the "MEP" so as to disambiguate this
>  > > (request-optional-ack or something like that).
>  > >
>  > > -Anish
>  > > --
>  > >
>  > > > Again, it's an optional SOAP envelope, so in the context of a SOAP
>  > > > binding it should be called optional response.  In the case of a
>  > WSDL
>  > > > one-way, I'd see that the complete description, including things
>  > like
>  > > > Policy assertions of RM-level acks and WSDL descriptions, is
>  > required to
>  > > > accurately describe whether a SOAP envelope is allowed as a response
>  > or
>  > > > not.
>  > > >
>  > > > Cheers,
>  > > > Dave
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >>-----Original Message-----
>  > > >>From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
>  > > >>Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:26 PM
>  > > >>To: David Orchard
>  > > >>Cc: Mark Baker; Christopher B Ferris; WS-Addressing
>  > > >>Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc
>  > > >>
>  > > >>Thinking more on this, isn't this still a one-way?
>  > > >>I.e., a SOAP envelope can come back on the HTTP 202 response without
>  > > >>making it a request-response.
>  > > >>
>  > > >>202 is intentionally non-committal. It says 'Accepted'. A RM-level
>  > ack
>  > > >>does not mean that the SOAP envelope is a 'response' to the
>  > 'request'
>  > > >
>  > > > in
>  > > >
>  > > >>the HTTP request.
>  > > >>
>  > > >>I think it is fine to call it one-way (as you did in your previous
>  > > >>formulation). This is important, as there aren't any SOAP MEPs in
>  > SOAP
>  > > >>1.1 so everything is in the context of a WSDL operation. In the case
>  > > >
>  > > > of
>  > > >
>  > > >>status code 202, there isn't a WSDL level response as it is a WSDL
>  > > >>one-way operation.
>  > > >>
>  > > >>-Anish
>  > > >>--
>  > > >>
>  > > >>David Orchard wrote:
>  > > >>
>  > > >>>Sounds like it's a request-optional response HTTP binding that
>  > y'all
>  > > >
>  > > > are
>  > > >
>  > > >>>looking for.
>  > > >>>
>  > > >>>Dave
>  > > >>>
>  > > >>>
>  > > >>>
>  > > >>>>-----Original Message-----
>  > > >>>>From: mbaker@gmail.com [mailto:mbaker@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark
>  > > >>>
>  > > >>>Baker
>  > > >>>
>  > > >>>
>  > > >>>>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:41 AM
>  > > >>>>To: David Orchard
>  > > >>>>Cc: Christopher B Ferris; WS-Addressing
>  > > >>>>Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc
>  > > >>>>
>  > > >>>>On 1/20/06, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> wrote:
>  > > >>>>
>  > > >>>>
>  > > >>>>>So y'all are looking for a binding that says a 202 is allowed and
>  > > >
>  > > > if
>  > > >
>  > > >>>so,
>  > > >>>
>  > > >>>
>  > > >>>>>the response may or may not contain a SOAP envelope.  It's the
>  > > >>>>>preclusion of the soap envelope that's the problem?
>  > > >>>>
>  > > >>>>From my POV, yep!
>  > > >>>
>  > > >>>>Mark.
>  > > >>>
>  > > >>>
>  > > >>>
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 06:35:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT