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: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:56:58 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C86506F@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Soap-Request-optional-soap-response vs
soap-request-optional-protocol-response?  
SOAP Request-optional-response vs SOAP
request-optional-protocol-response?
  
I don't see why we need to distinguish between a SOAP response with 200
vs with 202.  

Another way of looking at this is there are 2 simultaneous and
orthogonal changes going on: 
1) adding 202 as a valid status code for the soap 1.1 http binding for
request-response.
2) adding a one-way that allows for no soap response that uses 202 as
the status code.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:59 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Mark Baker; Christopher B Ferris; WS-Addressing
> Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc
> 
> 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 21:59:34 GMT

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