RE: Rewrite of SOAP 1.2 Adjuncts

I don't think it's legit for a soap stack to "fluff up" an envelope
unless specifically licensed.  How could a downstream software actually
no that no soap envelope was sent in general?  I guess this is the
classic "null" problem.  I don't think one would want to do the obvious
solution and fluff up an envelope and then mark it some with something
like soap:nil="true", unless specifically licensed.  

I could see it if something in the metadata, like WSDL, said that
something could be fluffed up and provided an algorithm.  An obvious
example would be an HTTP GET request that would be mapped to a SOAP RPC
message.  I guess a new mep/binding could say "create an empty soap
envelope" but that would certainly be a breaking change from today's
implementation.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Rich Salz
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:00 PM
> To: David Hull
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Rewrite of SOAP 1.2 Adjuncts
> 
> 
> > >Do you htink it's legitimate for parts of the SOAP stack to turn a
"no
> > >SOAP response" from the transport/transfer layer, into an empty
soap
> > >message?
> > >
> > >
> > I've proposed it (it's "DH1" on the table I sent a while ago), but
I'm
> > no longer so sure it's the best way to go.
> 
> It seems to me that *not* doing it requires WSDL knowledge to be
embedded
> pretty deeply into the SOAP stack or distributed among all
intermediaries
> that may be involved in hte message.  Either way, that seems like a
bad
> idea.
> 
> 	/r$
> 
> --
> SOA Appliance Group
> IBM Application Integration Middleware
> * This address is going away; please use rsalz@us.ibm.com *
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 01:24:23 UTC