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

Ah,

I see your point. I think we are thinking the same thing, and the words 
are getting in the way:-)

I agree that certain faults will be generated before step 3, and that they 
would immediately be made
available in OutputMessage because by definition, a generated fault 
terminates all processing of
the message.

Agreed?

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 
12:12:03 PM:

> 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> 
>