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

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

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:12:03 +0100
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-id: <43E0EBE3.6030205@crf.canon.fr>

Chris,

Possibly, and I was about to agree with you, but then again you say : 
"(or fault)", and for me the OutputMessage will be set after step 3 only 
for some fauts but not for all (for example, for mU but not vM faults). 
I don't see any need to perform steps 1 to 3 if we're going to fault on 
version mismatch (we might not even be able to do so because the message 
may be unreadable).

JJ.

Christopher B Ferris wrote:

>
> 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 17:12:18 GMT

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