W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Fw: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:54:11 -0500
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF931563DC.A4DA2D2C-ON85257108.005BDB99-85257108.005CDA2F@us.ibm.com>
JJ,

Possibly you mis-understood me. I totally agree that a VersionMismatch or 
other receiver
fault can be generated. I was only suggesting that at the very least, the 
SOAP processing
model, through step 3 needed to be performed before making the response 
message
(or fault) available in the OutputMessage as per the binding, just so that 
we are precise
about what the responsibilities are.

I think that this also applies in the streaming case.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> wrote on 02/01/2006 
06:47:28 AM:

> Hi Chris,
> 
> What if there's a VersionMismatch or some "early" Receiver fault? 
> Shouldn't that be reported before the processing model is even engaged 
> (i.e. before step 1 is completed [if ever started])?
> 
> If the response is a response (i.e. not a fault), then it cannot happen 
> before step 4 has been completed. If it's a fault, then all bets are 
> off. It could happen at any stage: from before step 1 up to during step 
4.
> 
> Did I miss something?
> 
> JJ.
> 
> Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> 
> >
> > I think that this issue from ws-a wg has relevance to our work on the 
> > binding,
> >
> > In reviewing the current text and tables in part 2, it isn't clear to 
> > me that there is
> > an established and well defined relationship between the request and 
> > response
> > messages with regards to the SOAP processing model.
> >
> > e.g. it doesn't say anywhere whether the SOAP processing as described
> > in part 1 sect 2.6 MUST be performed BEFORE the "response message"
> > in the Request Response MEP is made available in the outputMessage
> > property.
> >
> > As I indicated in my response to Marc on the ws-a list, I think that 
at a
> > minimum, any response, whether SOAPy or not, should be made only
> > AFTER steps 1, 2 and 3 as defined in section 2.6 of part 1 have been
> > completed so that any mU faults can be transmitted even if the actual
> > processing of the headers (and the body) are to be deferred.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Christopher Ferris
> > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> > phone: +1 508 377 9295
> > ----- Forwarded by Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM on 01/31/2006 
> > 12:49 PM -----
> >
> > public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 01/31/2006 11:53:27 AM:
> >
> > >
> > > Marc,
> > >
> > > Good question.
> > >
> > > Given that a 202 response is not related to the *processing* of the
> > > request message, one could
> > > conclude that any SOAP envelope carried in the 202 Accepted response
> > > might not necessarily
> > > have a relationship with the request message at all. However, given
> > > what Mark observed, I suspect
> > > that we might do well to specify that at a minimum, the SOAP
> > > processing w/r/t SOAP headers
> > > MUST be performed before any response is generated, so as to ensure
> > > that if a mU fault
> > > is generated, it can be transmitted on the HTTP response (with a 
500).
> > >
> > > So, my inclination would be (b)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Christopher Ferris
> > > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> > > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> > > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> > > phone: +1 508 377 9295
> > >
> > > public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 01/31/2006 10:22:51 AM:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mark Baker 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
> > > > >
> > > > Right, this chimes with my comments on the call last night. The 
> > envelope
> > > > returned in the HTTP 202 response is something other than a reply 
> > to the
> > > > envelope sent in the HTTP request. The question I'm struggling 
> > with is
> > > > whether one can assume that the SOAP processing rules have been 
> > followed
> > > > on the request envelope prior to the response envelope being 
> > returned or
> > > > not ? E.g. if I include WS-Addr header blocks in the request 
> > envelope,
> > > > can I assume that the 202 response envelope will contain the 
expected
> > > > WS-Addr header blocks (e.g. relationship(msgid)). If the SOAP 
> > processing
> > > > rules haven't been followed then what process lead to the 
> > generation of
> > > > the 202 response envelope ? We've been using WS-RX as a use case 
but,
> > > > AFAIK, WS-RX uses header blocks and relies on the SOAP processing 
> > model
> > > > too so are we inventing a new two-stage SOAP processing model or 
> > what ?
> > > >
> > > > In a nutshell, I think we need to decide whether the 202 response
> > > > envelope is returned:
> > > >
> > > > (a) Before SOAP header block and SOAP Body processing, or
> > > > (b) After SOAP header block processing but before SOAP Body 
> > processing, or
> > > > (c) (for completeness although this seems to contradict the 
> > 'Accepted'
> > > > semantics of HTTP 202) After SOAP header block and SOAP Body 
> > processing.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts ?
> > > >
> > > > Marc.
> > > >
> > > > >>  If 202 can be a real response, then one would have to use
> > > > something besides
> > > > >> 202 to figure out what's really going on (e.g., whether the
> > > > message consists
> > > > >> only of WS-RX headers and similar).  In this case 202 isn't
> > > really carrying
> > > > >> any information and why bother allowing for it?  On the other
> > > hand, if 202
> > > > >> means something in particular, then what exactly does it mean?
> > > > >
> > > > > Just what it says in the HTTP spec.
> > > > >
> > > > >>  As far as I can tell, the value in non-empty 202 is telling
> > > the SOAP stack
> > > > >> "Hey, this is just infrastructure stuff.  Don't pass it along 
> > to the
> > > > >> application."  We can't say that here, but we could (probably) 
> > say it
> > > > >> elsewhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > 202, like 200, is a symbol with application layer semantics, and 
as
> > > > > such, it should be exposed to the application (plus the SOAP 1.2 

> > HTTP
> > > > > binding is a *transfer* binding).  In the case of 202, the 
> > application
> > > > > needs to know that no subsequent message which includes "the 
results
> > > > > of processing" of the initial request, is necessarily 
> > forthcoming (and
> > > > > won't be without additional agreement).
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, I just noticed this part of the 202 spec which should 
> > probably be
> > > > > highlighted;
> > > > >
> > > > >   "The entity returned with this
> > > > >    response SHOULD include an indication of the request's 
> > current status
> > > > >    and either a pointer to a status monitor or some estimate of 
> > when the
> > > > >    user can expect the request to be fulfilled."
> > > > >
> > > > > Which suggests that a URI could be returned upon which the 
> > application
> > > > > could invoke GET to determine the state of the processing of the
> > > > > request (anybody remember CORBA "Futures"?).
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 16:54:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:21 GMT