RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

+1

Also, I hope that a 202 does not necessarily preclude a SOAP envelope in 
the HTTP response.

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

"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> wrote on 01/30/2006 04:56:58 PM:

> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>