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

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: [email protected]
> 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 -----
>
> [email protected] 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: [email protected]
> > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> > phone: +1 508 377 9295
> >
> > [email protected] wrote on 01/31/2006 10:22:51 AM:
> >
> > >
> > > Mark Baker wrote:
> > > > On 1/31/06, David Hull <[email protected]> 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > >