W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > May 2001

RE: SOAPAction Proposal

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:31:54 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192408@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Martin Gudgin'" <marting@develop.com>
Cc: XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Hi Martin,

Just a question really. In a scenario that employs intermediaries, what are
our expectations of the value carried in a SOAPAction header on each hop in
the path?

a)  the SOAPAction header to carries the same 
    value on each hop down the path? 

    Either fix or, as you suggest, a value dervied 
    from the uri of the recipient and the 
    fully qualified name of the first 
    child of the body.

b)  least the uri part of the SOAPAction uriref 
    (before the #) to be based on the URI of 
    the intermediary. 

    The part after the # might be derived as 
    in a) or might be derived from the fully 
    qualified name of some notion of a principal 
    header targetted at that intermediary?

c)  some other mechanism....

Regards

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:marting@develop.com]
> Sent: 03 May 2001 10:07
> To: XML Protocol Comments
> Subject: SOAPAction Proposal
> 
> 
> I've been reading the mails on SOAPAction, there seems to be 
> some sentiment
> for the idea that the value of SOAPAction should reflect some 
> information in
> the body of the message. Here is a proposal for discussion;
> 
> The value of SOAPAction *must* be the namespace URI and local 
> name of the
> first element child of soap:Body separated by a #. If the value of
> SOAPAction does not contain that value the server *must* 
> generate a fault.
> 
> e.g.
> 
> POST someuri HTTP/1.1
> Content-Type: text/xml
> Content-Length: nnnn
> SOAPAction: myuri#myelement
> 
> <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap='uri for soap' >
>   <soap:Body>
>     <m:myelement xmlns:m='myuri' />
>   </soap:Body>
> </soap:Envelope>
> 
> Note that currently SOAPAction can be anything, it doesn't 
> need to reflect
> any piece of information in the body of the message. This proposal is
> similar ( if not identical... ) to the SOAPMethodName in SOAP 1.0[1]
> 
> Flames, comments etc. to the usual address,
> 
> Martin Gudgin
> DevelopMentor
> 
> [1] http://www.soaprpc.com/mirror/ietf/draft-box-http-soap-01.txt.html
> 
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2001 11:32:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT