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

RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:35:19 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C632CB5@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

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?

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mbaker@gmail.com [mailto:mbaker@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Baker
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:16 AM
> To: Christopher B Ferris
> Cc: David Orchard; WS-Addressing; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc
> 
> +1 (we've *got* to stop doing this, Chris 8-)
> 
> AFAICT, it's the 202 response semantic that provides the desired
> "one-way"-ness here, but making use of it obviously requires a
> response be sent.  Moreover, those semantics are independent of the
> content of the response.  Therefore, as I said before[1] (re SOAP
> 1.2), I can see no reason why a response body should be disallowed.
> Even a SOAP envelope should be fine, because the 202 code tells the
> client that the envelope does *not* represent the results of
> processing the request.
> 
>  [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0057
> 
> Mark.
> 
> On 1/20/06, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > <decloak>
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > I have *significant* heartburn with this as it precludes the use
case of
> > sending a
> > WS-RM SequenceAcknowledgement (or other infrastructure-level signal)
as
> a
> > SOAP envelope in the HTTP response.
> >
> > The use case is considered to be of critical importance to a number
of
> > customers
> > with which I have dealt who want to leverage WS-RM for both oneway
and
> > asynch
> > request response message flows between business partners.
> >
> > This proposed binding simply carries forward the mistake that the
WS-I
> BP
> > 1.x
> > made with R2714 and R2750 (which I argued against at the time).
> >
> > I've got another post still in draft responding to another thread on
> this
> > matter
> > that I will be sending shortly.
> >
> > </decloak>
> >
> > 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
> >
> > public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 01/20/2006
> > 01:09:47 PM:
> >
> >  > Here's an xml spec xml and html version of a one-way HTTP
Binding.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Dave[attachment "soap11onewayhttpbinding.xml" deleted by
Christopher
> >  > B Ferris/Waltham/IBM] [attachment "soap11onewayhttpbinding.html"
> >  > deleted by Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM]
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
> Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 19:35:46 GMT

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