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

Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 10:12:23 -0500
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, distobj@acm.org, dmh@tibco.com, dorchard@bea.com, Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM, paul.downey@bt.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9A3039D8.CCEFABDF-ON85257108.00529FA7-85257108.00538844@us.ibm.com>
A big +1 to what Marc said.

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

Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM wrote on 02/01/2006 09:42:58 AM:

> On Feb 1, 2006, at 1:18 AM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> >
> >>> 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
> >
> That's one alternative.
> 
> > 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.
> >
> That idea trouble me a bit, the SOAP processing model is all or 
> nothing, allowing some headers to be processed and others to be 
> ignored (at least for mU processing) diverges from the spec as I read 
> it.
> 
> Marc.
> 
> >
> >> 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
> >
> 
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 15:12:46 GMT

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