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

Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:38:28 +1100
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0601301538x1a02f264r8a4dc16206a97270@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Oops, forgot to finish my thought

On 1/31/06, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
> On 1/31/06, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> wrote:
> >  We've been pretty clear for a while that empty 202 means "ack".  I'm
> > hearing that non-empty 202 is meant for things like WS-RX acks, but I'm not
> > sure this is nailed down.  There seems to be some possibility that a 202
> > with a SOAP envelope could also be a real response.
>
> It's still a response, just not the result of processing the request.
>
> So if you took a SOAP envelope and sent it as an HTTP response with a
> 202 code, it would mean something entirely different than if sent back
> with a 200 code... in the same way that a SOAP fault sent with 200
> means something entirely different than a SOAP fault

... sent with a 400 or 500 response code.

Mark.
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 23:38:32 GMT

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