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

Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:59:01 -0800
Message-ID: <43DE7E15.4070708@oracle.com>
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

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 Monday, 30 January 2006 20:59:29 GMT

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