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

RE: SOAP 1.1 request-optional-response http binding

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 08:12:39 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9CF6FAD2@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Richard Salz" <rsalz@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I think you could easily have a 202 with a content-type text/xml that
contains a soap envelope with an empty soap body and a ws-rx header that
acks a previous message.  Seems like it could be interpreted as the
expected response, or not the expected response.  

I don't know if I'd preclude text/html for 202, I admit I'm thinking
more of the previous case..


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Salz [mailto:rsalz@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:10 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAP 1.1 request-optional-response http binding
> So then perhaps the wording doesn't express what you mean.
> Do you mean
>         If http-status-code is 202 then
>                 if http-response-body is empty
>                         there is no response
>                 else
>                         http-response-body is the soap reply
> So that, for example, if I get back 202 with a content-type of
> that's out of scope?
>         /r$
> --
> SOA Appliance Group
> IBM Application Integration Middleware

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
Received on Thursday, 2 March 2006 16:14:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:13 UTC