Re: LocationTemplate-1G totally hosed ;-)

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> 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:
>   
I agree with the implication and think it makes a lot of sense, although 
I am unclear about the MAY/SHOULD/MUST state of the implication.

>   <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.
>   
Canon and Axis2 implementations seem to have the same behaviour on this 
one :)
Should we add an assertion in the exchange test-suite checking that if 
content-type is set in the GET request,
it must be application/soap+xml and action value equal to the specified 
value ?
> [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 14:58:33 UTC