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


 
There may other valid SOAP headers that are entirely unrelated to RM (or just unrelated to the specific instance of the problematic RM Sequence) which I believe should rightfully see the day light.
 
In the case of CS/STR mU that can not be respected, I do expect that a fault be raised but I don't see why the other valid parts of the message be discarded.
 
-- Sanjay


From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 15:19 PM
To: Patil, Sanjay
Cc: Gilbert Pilz; Paul Fremantle; wsrx
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] issue 115: clarifying question


What, then, would you have the processor do? Is it to take a case-by-case assessment?

In the case of the CS/STR, I certainly DO expect that the entire message fault in this manner.

Cheers,

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


"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com> wrote on 04/25/2006 05:51:48 PM:

>  

> Doesn't SOAP mU processing model require that the entire message be
> abandoned and a fault raised if the mU semantic can not be respected
> by the receiver. I am not sure we have enough reasons to justify
> triggering such a behavior for RM mU scenarios!

>  
> -- Sanjay
>
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 9:40 AM
> To: Gilbert Pilz
> Cc: Christopher B Ferris; wsrx
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] issue 115: clarifying question

> Gil
>
> Why is creating a new SOAP header a problem?
>
> Paul
>
> 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

>
> Gil,
>
> Actually, I had something more like this in mind:
>
> <?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:wsse="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-
> wssecurity-secext-1.0.xsd"
> xmlns:foo="http://example.org/foo"
> xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
> <S:Header>
>  <foo:SecureRM S:mustUnderstand="1"/>
>  <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>
>    <wsse:SecurityTokenReference>
>      ...
>    </wsse:SecurityTokenReference>
>  </wsrm:CreateSequence>
> </S:Body>
> </S:Envelope>
>
> Cheers,
>
> 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
>
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf
> paul@wso2.com
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com


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