Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [soapbuilders] Simple Type SOAP Headers

Expand Messages
  • Kirill Gavrylyuk
    Meant to add [1] http://www.pocketsoap.com/weblog/2005/08/test_1header.wsdl ... From: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com] On
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Meant to add

      [1] http://www.pocketsoap.com/weblog/2005/08/test_1header.wsdl

      -----Original Message-----
      From: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of Kirill Gavrylyuk
      Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 5:59 PM
      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Simple Type SOAP Headers

      Hi Simon,
      .Net 1.1 behavior aside, this is an interesting issue, that I don't
      think was discussed a lot (surprisingly).

      I do not believe that test_1header.wsdl at [1] is valid.

      The declaration of element tns:ValidFrom does not allow for SOAP
      attributes. Element tns:ValidForm per WSDL spec will be used literally
      in the message.

      I believe if you want to declare a header carrying a primitive type
      values, at minimum you need to open up the attribute content.

      E.g.
      <xs:complexType name="HeaderDateTimeType">
      <xs:simpleContent>
      <xs:extension base="xs:dateTime">
      <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax" />
      </xs:extension>
      </xs:simpleContent>
      </xs:complexType>
      <xs:element name="ValidFrom" type="tns:HeaderDateTimeType"/>

      Thoughts?


      -----Original Message-----
      From: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of Simon Fell
      Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:33 AM
      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [soapbuilders] Simple Type SOAP Headers

      I ran into some issues with SOAP Headers that are simple types when
      using .NET 1.1. I documented the issues here
      http://www.pocketsoap.com/weblog/2005/08/1557.html

      I was wondering how the other stacks handle this situation, there are
      test WSDLs in the blog post if anyone has time to try out their own
      stacks with them.

      Thanks!
      Simon
      www.pocketsoap.com





      -----------------------------------------------------------------
      This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
      implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      Yahoo! Groups Links









      -----------------------------------------------------------------
      This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
      implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Simon Fell
      That s a good point. I d say its valid, although it doesn t account for everything. (a request which is valid to the schema is a valid request) You could also
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 11, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        That's a good point. I'd say its valid, although it doesn't account
        for everything. (a request which is valid to the schema is a valid
        request)

        You could also just allow the specific soap attrbiutes.

        <xs:complexType name="HeaderDateTimeType">
        <xs:simpleContent>
        <xs:extension base="xs:dateTime">
        </xs:simpleContent>
        <xs:attribute ref="soap:actor" />
        <xs:attribute ref="soap:mustUnderstand" />
        </xs:complexType>
        <xs:element name="ValidFrom" type="tns:HeaderDateTimeType"/>

        I remeber doing this a couple of years ago, and it caused havoc with
        every toolkit that tried to process it.

        or this, which is essentially the same as above, but probably less
        likely to trip up the tools.

        <xs:complexType name="HeaderDateTimeType">
        <xs:simpleContent>
        <xs:extension base="xs:dateTime">
        <xs:anyAttribute
        namespace="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
        processContents="strict" />
        </xs:extension>
        </xs:simpleContent>
        </xs:complexType>
        <xs:element name="ValidFrom" type="tns:HeaderDateTimeType"/>


        Do any of the tools that generate WSDL do this?

        Cheers
        Simon

        --- In soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com, "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@m...>
        wrote:
        > Hi Simon,
        > .Net 1.1 behavior aside, this is an interesting issue, that I don't
        > think was discussed a lot (surprisingly).
        >
        > I do not believe that test_1header.wsdl at [1] is valid.
        >
        > The declaration of element tns:ValidFrom does not allow for SOAP
        > attributes. Element tns:ValidForm per WSDL spec will be used literally
        > in the message.
        >
        > I believe if you want to declare a header carrying a primitive type
        > values, at minimum you need to open up the attribute content.
        >
        > E.g.
        > <xs:complexType name="HeaderDateTimeType">
        > <xs:simpleContent>
        > <xs:extension base="xs:dateTime">
        > <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax" />
        > </xs:extension>
        > </xs:simpleContent>
        > </xs:complexType>
        > <xs:element name="ValidFrom" type="tns:HeaderDateTimeType"/>
        >
        > Thoughts?
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com]
        > On Behalf Of Simon Fell
        > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:33 AM
        > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [soapbuilders] Simple Type SOAP Headers
        >
        > I ran into some issues with SOAP Headers that are simple types when
        > using .NET 1.1. I documented the issues here
        > http://www.pocketsoap.com/weblog/2005/08/1557.html
        >
        > I was wondering how the other stacks handle this situation, there are
        > test WSDLs in the blog post if anyone has time to try out their own
        > stacks with them.
        >
        > Thanks!
        > Simon
        > www.pocketsoap.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > -----------------------------------------------------------------
        > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
        > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Simon Fell
        ahhh, here s the pointer to when i last tried this http://www.dotnet247.com/247reference/msgs/7/36948.aspx cheers Simon
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 11, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          ahhh, here's the pointer to when i last tried this
          http://www.dotnet247.com/247reference/msgs/7/36948.aspx

          cheers
          Simon

          On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:14:59 -0000, in ws you wrote:

          >That's a good point. I'd say its valid, although it doesn't account
          >for everything. (a request which is valid to the schema is a valid
          >request)
          >
          >You could also just allow the specific soap attrbiutes.
          >
          ><xs:complexType name="HeaderDateTimeType">
          > <xs:simpleContent>
          > <xs:extension base="xs:dateTime">
          > </xs:simpleContent>
          > <xs:attribute ref="soap:actor" />
          > <xs:attribute ref="soap:mustUnderstand" />
          ></xs:complexType>
          ><xs:element name="ValidFrom" type="tns:HeaderDateTimeType"/>
          >
          >I remeber doing this a couple of years ago, and it caused havoc with
          >every toolkit that tried to process it.
          >
          >or this, which is essentially the same as above, but probably less
          >likely to trip up the tools.
          >
          ><xs:complexType name="HeaderDateTimeType">
          > <xs:simpleContent>
          > <xs:extension base="xs:dateTime">
          > <xs:anyAttribute
          >namespace="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
          >processContents="strict" />
          > </xs:extension>
          > </xs:simpleContent>
          > </xs:complexType>
          ><xs:element name="ValidFrom" type="tns:HeaderDateTimeType"/>
          >
          >
          >Do any of the tools that generate WSDL do this?
          >
          >Cheers
          >Simon
          >
          >--- In soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com, "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@m...>
          >wrote:
          >> Hi Simon,
          >> .Net 1.1 behavior aside, this is an interesting issue, that I don't
          >> think was discussed a lot (surprisingly).
          >>
          >> I do not believe that test_1header.wsdl at [1] is valid.
          >>
          >> The declaration of element tns:ValidFrom does not allow for SOAP
          >> attributes. Element tns:ValidForm per WSDL spec will be used literally
          >> in the message.
          >>
          >> I believe if you want to declare a header carrying a primitive type
          >> values, at minimum you need to open up the attribute content.
          >>
          >> E.g.
          >> <xs:complexType name="HeaderDateTimeType">
          >> <xs:simpleContent>
          >> <xs:extension base="xs:dateTime">
          >> <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax" />
          >> </xs:extension>
          >> </xs:simpleContent>
          >> </xs:complexType>
          >> <xs:element name="ValidFrom" type="tns:HeaderDateTimeType"/>
          >>
          >> Thoughts?
          >>
          >>
          >> -----Original Message-----
          >> From: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com]
          >> On Behalf Of Simon Fell
          >> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:33 AM
          >> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
          >> Subject: [soapbuilders] Simple Type SOAP Headers
          >>
          >> I ran into some issues with SOAP Headers that are simple types when
          >> using .NET 1.1. I documented the issues here
          >> http://www.pocketsoap.com/weblog/2005/08/1557.html
          >>
          >> I was wondering how the other stacks handle this situation, there are
          >> test WSDLs in the blog post if anyone has time to try out their own
          >> stacks with them.
          >>
          >> Thanks!
          >> Simon
          >> www.pocketsoap.com
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
          >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
          >> implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
          >> Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >-----------------------------------------------------------------
          >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.