W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2007

RE: LocationTemplate-1G totally hosed ;-)

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:56:14 +0530
To: "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "'www-ws-desc'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001701c73dfe$ffcc8710$d901640a@DELLICIOUS>

I found this in the SOAP spec:

If the http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/features/action/Action property has a
value at a SOAP sender utilizing a binding supporting this feature, the
sender MUST use the property value as the value of the action parameter in
the media type designator. [1]

So to answer my own question, I think there's a pretty strong implication
that the Content-Type header should be set to application/soap+xml, and
include the action parameter, when the soap-response mep is used and the
action is specified, for instance in MessageTest-4G:

  <operation ref="tns:EchoString2"
    wsoap:mep="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/soap-response/"
    wsoap:action="http://example.org/message-test/action/EchoString2">

FWIW, (and after I'd concluded the above) I found that Axis2 currently
inserts the media type with action as above, although as of now it doesn't
correctly dispatch using the action in this case.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#actionstatemachine

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:22 PM
> To: 'Youenn Fablet'
> Cc: 'www-ws-desc'
> Subject: RE: LocationTemplate-1G totally hosed ;-)
> 
> 
> > > I forgot about the SOAP Response MEP - must be some jetlag.  Nothing
> > with an
> > > application/soap+xml media type will add uncited parameters, but I
> guess
> > > that doesn't include the SOAP Response MEP which doesn't have a media
> > type
> > > on the request.  But in that case something is still broken:  {http
> > ignore
> > > uncited} isn't among the parameters listed as supported by the SOAP
> > binding.
> > > It doesn't appear in the interchange format, so it shouldn't really
> have
> > > been available for you to use to pass that testcase!
> > >
> > I am still unsure of the relationship between application/soap+xml and
> > uncited parameters.
> > Are you referring to section 6.7/table 6-5?
> > Anyway, in the SOAP-Response case, the media-type may be omitted within
> > the request, but it may also be added.
> > It may be especially useful if soap action has been specified and will
> > help the server.
> > Are you suggesting that depending on this implementation choice,
> > parameters should or should not be added to the request URL?
> 
> I tried to clarify this at [1].  The media type of a soap-response MEP
> request doesn't appear to affect the generation of query parameters.
> 
> I don't think either the WSDL Adjuncts spec nor the SOAP Adjuncts spec
> says
> anything explicit about which media type to use for a soap-response MEP,
> so
> you may be right that one could use application/soap+xml even though the
> body is empty.
> 
> Is there an implication that when there is a {soap action} that
> application/soap+xml is used?
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Jan/0141.html
> 
Received on Monday, 22 January 2007 08:26:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:45 GMT