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 22:18:12 -0800
Message-ID: <43E052A4.1010403@oracle.com>
To: paul.downey@bt.com
CC: chrisfer@us.ibm.com, Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM, distobj@acm.org, dmh@tibco.com, dorchard@bea.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org

paul.downey@bt.com wrote:

<snip/>

> 
>>However, given what Mark observed, I suspect
>>that we might do well to specify that at a minimum, the SOAP processing 
>>w/r/t SOAP headers MUST be performed before any response is generated, 
>>so as to ensure that if a mU fault is generated, it can be 
>>transmitted on the HTTP response (with a 500).
> 
> 
> Except I might legitimately send back a 202 Accepted following 
> securing the message in a database or putting it onto a reliable 
> message queue, well before any SOAP processing has taken place.
> 

+1

Or In the WSRX case, I might send back a 202 with a WSRX ack after 
processing all the WSRX headers and storing the messages in a DB, but 
before processing other non-WSRX headers.

-Anish
--

> For my money the ability to send a RX ACK in a 202 is interesting
> and falls well within RFC2616's 202, but presumably would require 
> SOAP processing generating MU faults etc, so would require more RX 
> specific instruction in such a note building upon Dave's one-way 
> note.
> 
> Paul
> 
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 06:43:03 GMT

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