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

RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:37:06 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C92E6BF@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, <distobj@acm.org>, <dmh@tibco.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM]
<bigsnip/>
> >
> The main use case I've heard is to allow WS-RX acks to be sent on the
> HTTP response even when the actual SOAP response message is conveyed
in
> some other way. For this use case I don't think (1) is valid since it
> involves some WS-RX header processing. For this use case I think that
> something part way between 2 and 3 is being suggested, i.e. the mU
check
> is done and the WS-RX headers are processed but not necessarily all of
> the headers. From a WS-Addr perspective it would be good to define
> whether WS-A header are processed before the WS-RX ack is sent so a
> sender can know whether to expect WS-A MAPs in the WS-RX ack message
or
> not.

SOAP doesn't give an ordering and neither does ws-a or ws-rx. We've
never defined any kind of WS-ProcessingModel spec that defines an order.
The closest we have gotten is WSS which says order of security is the
order in which the tokens are in the header block.  This is akin to the
XML processing model problem aka does XInclude happen before or after
schema validation before or after xslt.  Which has sparked a Processing
Model WG at the W3C.  

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 18:37:47 GMT

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