OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ws-rx] issue 115: clarifying question


Why is creating a new SOAP header a problem?


Gilbert Pilz wrote:
So you are saying that the definition of qname of the header is the reference to the extension? This means that, for every extension for which I want mU semantics, I need to define a unique header? Why is this preferable to defining a single new attribute?
What if I extend something like the SequenceAcknowledgement header? Suppose an RMD is returning a message into which it inserts two separate SequenceAcknowledgement's, one of which has a mustUnderstand extension and the other which does not. It seems that, using your mechanism, an RMS that did not understand the extension would not be able to process either of the acknowledgments despite the fact that one of them is not extended in any way. What if there were three SequenceAcknowledgement headers in the same message; one that carries a mustUnderstand extension, another that carries a mayIgnore extension, and a third that isn't extended at all?
- gp

From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 6:07 PM
To: Gilbert Pilz
Cc: wsrx
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] issue 115: clarifying question


Actually, I had something more like this in mind:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<S:Envelope xmlns:S="
 <foo:SecureRM S:mustUnderstand="1"/>




Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com> wrote on 04/24/2006 05:41:23 PM:

> During the conference call of 4/20/2006 Chris asserted that you can
> use a SOAP header with a mustUnderstand attribute to flag the fact
> that some element in either another header or in the message body is
> an extension that must be understood by the receiver. I'm not sure I
> understood exactly what Chris thought this should look like. For
> example, imagine the following CreateSequence message. The extension
> elements have been marked in bold. What is supposed to go in the
> <wsrm:Extension> header?
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
> xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200604"
> xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
>  <S:Header>
>   <wsrm:Extension S:mustUnderstand="1">
>     ????
>   </wsrm:Extension>
>   <wsa:MessageID>
>    http://Business456.com/guid/0baaf88d-483b-4ecf-a6d8-a7c2eb546817
>   </wsa:MessageID>
>   <wsa:To>http://example.com/serviceB/123</wsa:To>
>     <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200604/CreateSequence
> </wsa:Action>
>   <wsa:ReplyTo>
>    <wsa:Address>http://Business456.com/serviceA/789</wsa:Address>
>   </wsa:ReplyTo>
>  </S:Header>
>  <S:Body>
>   <wsrm:CreateSequence>
>     <wsrm:AcksTo>
>       <wsa:Address>http://Business456.com/serviceA/789</wsa:Address>
>     </wsrm:AcksTo>
>     <wsrm:SecurityComposition>
>       <wsrm:Identifier>
>         http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-
> rx/wsrmsp/200604/profile/http_auth/samenode
>       </wsrm:Identifier>
>     </wsrm:SecurityComposition>
>   </wsrm:CreateSequence>
>  </S:Body>
> </S:Envelope>
> I'm sure that most of us could all come up with a reasonable design
> to do what you suggest, but for the purposes of further discussion
> I'd like to know what design Chris had in mind?
> - gp


Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair


"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]