- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:38:28 +1100
- To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Oops, forgot to finish my thought On 1/31/06, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> 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 ... sent with a 400 or 500 response code. Mark.
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 23:38:32 UTC