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

mustUnderstand on client side

Expand Messages
  • Paul Kulchenko
    Hi, All! Since it s possible to return Header from server to client also, what should client do if this header has mustUnderstand attribute or wrong actor?
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 18, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, All!

      Since it's possible to return Header from server to client also, what
      should client do if this header has mustUnderstand attribute or wrong
      actor?

      Best wishes, Paul.


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
      http://auctions.yahoo.com/
    • Doug Davis
      I see 3 choices: 1 - ignore it 2 - fault back to the server 3 - fault back to the client While 2 is probably what should happen, I doubt many will be able to
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 18, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        I see 3 choices:
        1 - ignore it
        2 - fault back to the server
        3 - fault back to the client

        While 2 is probably what "should" happen, I doubt many
        will be able to support this. 1 seems most likely, but
        scares me. 3 seems like a nice middle of the road solution.
        8-)

        -Dug


        Paul Kulchenko <paulclinger@...> on 04/18/2001 12:07:23 PM

        Please respond to soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com

        To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        cc:
        Subject: [soapbuilders] mustUnderstand on client side



        Hi, All!

        Since it's possible to return Header from server to client also, what
        should client do if this header has mustUnderstand attribute or wrong
        actor?

        Best wishes, Paul.


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
        http://auctions.yahoo.com/


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

        Click Here!

        [IMAGE]



        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • Glen Daniels
        Hi Paul: In most cases, it may very well be in the message as you say. I think we ll see what the common patterns are as usage builds over the next year or
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 18, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Paul:

          In most cases, it may very well be in the message as you say. I think we'll
          see what the common patterns are as usage builds over the next year or so.
          What I'm really trying to say is that I think it's a very bad idea to
          REQUIRE this to be the case, since I doubt we can predict all the possible
          scenarios, and we don't want to preclude particular optimizations /
          implementations.

          --Glen

          > I agree with Doug that in most cases information required for
          > dispatch should come from the message itself. Untill now namespace of
          > the first element [+ method name] was the basic dispatch mechanism
          > for SOAP::Lite. New version is supporting dispatch based on
          > SOAPAction/endpoint address, but it's just an exception that proves
          > rule: envelope should be self-sufficient. :)
          >
          > Best wishes, Paul.
          >
          > --- gdaniels@... wrote:
          > >
          > > > But doesn't that prove my point.You put stuff into the soap
          > > envelope.
          > > > If the message was to then go along an HTTP transport where is
          > > > the SOAPAction header going to come from? The only place it
          > > > really can come from is from inside the soap envelope - not
          > > > necessarily char for char, but there has to be some mechanism
          > > > by which the SOAPHeader was derived. So I think all of the info
          > > > needed for dispatching will end up being someplace in the
          > > envelope.
          > >
          > > I disagree. I think this is a matter completely determined by the
          > > contract
          > > between the two endpoints. My intermediary MAY work by setting the
          > > SOAPAction to the qName of the 1st body element and then passing
          > > the message
          > > on, but it also may perfectly well use a static SOAPAction which
          > > lets the
          > > HTTP server know simply that this is a message from this particular
          > > intermediary. Or let's say I accept SMTP messages and send them on
          > > to an
          > > HTTP server - I may have a simple map of email address ->
          > > SOAPAction, so the
          > > SOAPAction I send is dependent on how I got the message, not
          > > anything in the
          > > actual SOAP contents. The contents of such a table would be
          > > configured in
          > > some unspecified out-of-band way.
          > >
          > > > Some SOAP engines might indeed use the SOAPAction for
          > > > dispatching but I think they will end-up limiting themselves to
          > > just
          > > > HTTP if they don't also support other dispatch mechanisms.
          > >
          > > +1
          > >
          > > > Like you said in a previous note - Axis will support SOAPAction
          > > > as well as namespace (and possible others) - which I think is
          > > > the right answer.
          > >
          > > Also +1.
          > >
          > > --Glen
          > >
          > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > >
          > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          > __________________________________________________
          > Do You Yahoo!?
          > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
          > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
          >
          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > ---------------------~-~>
          > Do you have 128-bit SSL encryption server security?
          > Get VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your
          > Web Site for Business." Get it now!
          > http://us.click.yahoo.com/2cW4jC/c.WCAA/bT0EAA/WNqXlB/TM
          > --------------------------------------------------------------
          > -------_->
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Dick Brooks
          ... Actually, SOAPAction can be appended to any MIME envelope, it s not specific to HTTP. For example, ebXML s SMTP binding includes SOAPAction: ebXML . The
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 18, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Dug wrote:

            > dispatching but I think they will end-up limiting themselves to just
            > HTTP if they don't also support other dispatch mechanisms.

            Actually, SOAPAction can be appended to any MIME envelope, it's not specific
            to HTTP. For example,
            ebXML's SMTP binding includes SOAPAction: "ebXML".

            The dispatch function can occur at several layers, including:
            - the transport layer (e.g. "POST /ImaDispatcher HTTP/1.1", or "To:
            application@...")
            - the MIME layer (Content-type: application/pgp-signature, or SOAPAction:
            "ebXML")
            - Some deeper layer (<SOAP-ENV:Body><m:UseMeToDispatch ....>)

            It's likely that implementers will want the flexibility to decide for
            themselves
            how to implement dispatch functions by layer. In Group 8760's case our
            message
            broker operates at the MIME layer and below.


            Dick Brooks
            Group 8760
            110 12th Street North
            Birmingham, AL 35203
            dick@...
            205-250-8053
            Fax: 205-250-8057
            http://www.8760.com/

            InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
          • Rosimildo daSIlva
            ... Paul, I agree too. It is pretty clear ( at least to me ), that the Envelope should have everything that it needs. It is the idea of full encapsulation
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 18, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Paul Kulchenko <paulclinger@...> wrote:
              > Hi, Glen!
              >
              > I agree with Doug that in most cases information
              > required for
              > dispatch should come from the message itself. Untill
              > now namespace of
              > the first element [+ method name] was the basic
              > dispatch mechanism
              > for SOAP::Lite. New version is supporting dispatch
              > based on
              > SOAPAction/endpoint address, but it's just an
              > exception that proves
              > rule: envelope should be self-sufficient. :)
              >

              Paul,

              I agree too. It is pretty clear ( at least to me ),
              that the "Envelope" should have everything that
              it needs.

              It is the idea of full "encapsulation" of protocol
              layers. In my view, HTTP is a lower layer that
              is used to carry SOAP envelopes. The envelope at
              some point is passed to higher layer for processing.
              This higher layer should know nothing about HTTP.
              The only thing it should know is to process
              SOAP envelopes.

              The idea of a SOAP processor to use HTTP headers
              to do something like dispatching methods, it is
              *not a smart move*. It certainly breaks the
              idea of protocol layers.

              It is like a TCP framework that requires a
              couple of fields of an IP frame. :-)

              Rosimildo.













              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
              http://auctions.yahoo.com/
            • graham glass
              i 100% agree with you rosimildo! cheers, graham ... From: Rosimildo daSIlva [mailto:rosimildo@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:47 PM To:
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 18, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                i 100% agree with you rosimildo!

                cheers,
                graham

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Rosimildo daSIlva [mailto:rosimildo@...]
                Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:47 PM
                To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: eSoap & White Mesa SOAP RPC 1.4


                --- Paul Kulchenko <paulclinger@...> wrote:
                > Hi, Glen!
                >
                > I agree with Doug that in most cases information
                > required for
                > dispatch should come from the message itself. Untill
                > now namespace of
                > the first element [+ method name] was the basic
                > dispatch mechanism
                > for SOAP::Lite. New version is supporting dispatch
                > based on
                > SOAPAction/endpoint address, but it's just an
                > exception that proves
                > rule: envelope should be self-sufficient. :)
                >

                Paul,

                I agree too. It is pretty clear ( at least to me ),
                that the "Envelope" should have everything that
                it needs.

                It is the idea of full "encapsulation" of protocol
                layers. In my view, HTTP is a lower layer that
                is used to carry SOAP envelopes. The envelope at
                some point is passed to higher layer for processing.
                This higher layer should know nothing about HTTP.
                The only thing it should know is to process
                SOAP envelopes.

                The idea of a SOAP processor to use HTTP headers
                to do something like dispatching methods, it is
                *not a smart move*. It certainly breaks the
                idea of protocol layers.

                It is like a TCP framework that requires a
                couple of fields of an IP frame. :-)

                Rosimildo.













                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                http://auctions.yahoo.com/


                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • gdaniels@macromedia.com
                ... In fact, I believe many (most?) TCP implementations do share information with the IP layer for performance reasons. :) --G
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 18, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  > The idea of a SOAP processor to use HTTP headers
                  > to do something like dispatching methods, it is
                  > *not a smart move*. It certainly breaks the
                  > idea of protocol layers.
                  >
                  > It is like a TCP framework that requires a
                  > couple of fields of an IP frame. :-)

                  In fact, I believe many (most?) TCP implementations do share information
                  with the IP layer for performance reasons. :)

                  --G
                • David Crowley
                  ... When I said match I should have probably said something like the SOAPAction is appropriate for the given method. Whatever is appropriate varies on the
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 18, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 04:09 AM 4/18/2001, you wrote:
                    >David,
                    > The problem with this is that the spec doesn't say they have to
                    >match. I agree that it would be nice if they did match but I
                    >don't think they have to.
                    >-Dug
                    >

                    When I said "match" I should have probably said something like "the
                    SOAPAction is appropriate for the given method." Whatever is appropriate
                    varies on the requirements of the method or server. It could be blank,
                    match the QName of the method, match what is specified in the WSDL, etc.
                  • Paul Kulchenko
                    Hi, Glen! SOAP::Lite doesn t. Rosimildo is right, I don t have any other source of information to dispatch my call except namespace+method or endpoint address
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 18, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi, Glen!

                      SOAP::Lite doesn't. Rosimildo is right, I don't have any other source
                      of information to dispatch my call except namespace+method or
                      endpoint address (in this case domain:port :)). Dispatch based only
                      on envelope information it's like common denominator.

                      Best wishes, Paul.

                      --- gdaniels@... wrote:
                      >
                      > > The idea of a SOAP processor to use HTTP headers
                      > > to do something like dispatching methods, it is
                      > > *not a smart move*. It certainly breaks the
                      > > idea of protocol layers.
                      > >
                      > > It is like a TCP framework that requires a
                      > > couple of fields of an IP frame. :-)
                      >
                      > In fact, I believe many (most?) TCP implementations do share
                      > information
                      > with the IP layer for performance reasons. :)
                      >
                      > --G
                      >
                      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                      http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                    • Paul Kulchenko
                      Hi, Graham! Cool! At the same time SOAPAction is useful, because it allows you to filter messages without looking inside. :)) Agree? Best wishes, Paul. ...
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 18, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi, Graham!

                        Cool! At the same time SOAPAction is useful, because it allows you to
                        filter messages without looking inside. :)) Agree?

                        Best wishes, Paul.

                        --- graham glass <graham-glass@...> wrote:
                        > i 100% agree with you rosimildo!
                        >
                        > cheers,
                        > graham
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: Rosimildo daSIlva [mailto:rosimildo@...]
                        > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:47 PM
                        > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: eSoap & White Mesa SOAP RPC 1.4
                        >
                        >
                        > --- Paul Kulchenko <paulclinger@...> wrote:
                        > > Hi, Glen!
                        > >
                        > > I agree with Doug that in most cases information
                        > > required for
                        > > dispatch should come from the message itself. Untill
                        > > now namespace of
                        > > the first element [+ method name] was the basic
                        > > dispatch mechanism
                        > > for SOAP::Lite. New version is supporting dispatch
                        > > based on
                        > > SOAPAction/endpoint address, but it's just an
                        > > exception that proves
                        > > rule: envelope should be self-sufficient. :)
                        > >
                        >
                        > Paul,
                        >
                        > I agree too. It is pretty clear ( at least to me ),
                        > that the "Envelope" should have everything that
                        > it needs.
                        >
                        > It is the idea of full "encapsulation" of protocol
                        > layers. In my view, HTTP is a lower layer that
                        > is used to carry SOAP envelopes. The envelope at
                        > some point is passed to higher layer for processing.
                        > This higher layer should know nothing about HTTP.
                        > The only thing it should know is to process
                        > SOAP envelopes.
                        >
                        > The idea of a SOAP processor to use HTTP headers
                        > to do something like dispatching methods, it is
                        > *not a smart move*. It certainly breaks the
                        > idea of protocol layers.
                        >
                        > It is like a TCP framework that requires a
                        > couple of fields of an IP frame. :-)
                        >
                        > Rosimildo.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > __________________________________________________
                        > Do You Yahoo!?
                        > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                        > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                        >
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                        http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                      • graham glass
                        exactly. it s a bit like a biological cell which puts bits and pieces of itself into the membrane so that other cells can check it out from the outside.
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 18, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          exactly.

                          it's a bit like a biological cell which puts
                          bits and pieces of itself into the membrane
                          so that other cells can check it out from the
                          outside.

                          cheers,
                          graham

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Paul Kulchenko [mailto:paulclinger@...]
                          Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1:54 PM
                          To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: eSoap & White Mesa SOAP RPC 1.4


                          Hi, Graham!

                          Cool! At the same time SOAPAction is useful, because it allows you to
                          filter messages without looking inside. :)) Agree?

                          Best wishes, Paul.

                          --- graham glass <graham-glass@...> wrote:
                          > i 100% agree with you rosimildo!
                          >
                          > cheers,
                          > graham
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: Rosimildo daSIlva [mailto:rosimildo@...]
                          > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:47 PM
                          > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: eSoap & White Mesa SOAP RPC 1.4
                          >
                          >
                          > --- Paul Kulchenko <paulclinger@...> wrote:
                          > > Hi, Glen!
                          > >
                          > > I agree with Doug that in most cases information
                          > > required for
                          > > dispatch should come from the message itself. Untill
                          > > now namespace of
                          > > the first element [+ method name] was the basic
                          > > dispatch mechanism
                          > > for SOAP::Lite. New version is supporting dispatch
                          > > based on
                          > > SOAPAction/endpoint address, but it's just an
                          > > exception that proves
                          > > rule: envelope should be self-sufficient. :)
                          > >
                          >
                          > Paul,
                          >
                          > I agree too. It is pretty clear ( at least to me ),
                          > that the "Envelope" should have everything that
                          > it needs.
                          >
                          > It is the idea of full "encapsulation" of protocol
                          > layers. In my view, HTTP is a lower layer that
                          > is used to carry SOAP envelopes. The envelope at
                          > some point is passed to higher layer for processing.
                          > This higher layer should know nothing about HTTP.
                          > The only thing it should know is to process
                          > SOAP envelopes.
                          >
                          > The idea of a SOAP processor to use HTTP headers
                          > to do something like dispatching methods, it is
                          > *not a smart move*. It certainly breaks the
                          > idea of protocol layers.
                          >
                          > It is like a TCP framework that requires a
                          > couple of fields of an IP frame. :-)
                          >
                          > Rosimildo.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > __________________________________________________
                          > Do You Yahoo!?
                          > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                          > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                          >
                          >
                          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          >
                          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >


                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                          http://auctions.yahoo.com/


                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        • Mike Deem
                          The Microsoft SOAP Toolkit does 1. 3 is also a reasonable solution. An use case that recently came up: the service sends arbitrary session state back to the
                          Message 12 of 21 , Apr 18, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The Microsoft SOAP Toolkit does 1. 3 is also a reasonable solution.

                            An use case that recently came up: the service sends arbitrary "session"
                            state back to the client in an header. The client needs to echo that
                            header back to the service in future requests or things won't work. It
                            makes sense for the server to set mustUnderstand="1" and expect the
                            client to generate a fault for the application should it not understand
                            this header.

                            == Mike ==

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@...]
                            Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 9:16 AM
                            To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] mustUnderstand on client side


                            I see 3 choices:
                            1 - ignore it
                            2 - fault back to the server
                            3 - fault back to the client

                            While 2 is probably what "should" happen, I doubt many
                            will be able to support this. 1 seems most likely, but
                            scares me. 3 seems like a nice middle of the road solution.
                            8-)

                            -Dug


                            Paul Kulchenko <paulclinger@...> on 04/18/2001 12:07:23 PM

                            Please respond to soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com

                            To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                            cc:
                            Subject: [soapbuilders] mustUnderstand on client side



                            Hi, All!

                            Since it's possible to return Header from server to client also, what
                            should client do if this header has mustUnderstand attribute or wrong
                            actor?

                            Best wishes, Paul.


                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                            http://auctions.yahoo.com/



                            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                            Click Here!



                            [IMAGE]





                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          • Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
                            The basic SOAP processing model described in [1] doesn t know about servers or clients but only SOAP processors which is the reason why SOAP in general walks
                            Message 13 of 21 , Apr 22, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              The basic SOAP processing model described in [1] doesn't know about
                              servers or clients but only "SOAP processors" which is the reason why
                              SOAP in general walks a fine line when talking about *generating* a
                              fault vs. *sending* a fault. The latter is only mentioned in the HTTP
                              binding and the RPC convention as these two talk about "requests" and
                              "responses". That is, SOAP distinguishes between generating a fault and
                              sending a fault message somewhere.

                              Within the context of a request/response model, I think the right thing
                              for an HTTP client that cannot accept/obey the SOAP message semantics is
                              to fault the processing or to suggest that the message is saved for
                              later processing by a more savvy processor. The latter is similar to
                              what clients do when receiving a response with an unknown media type.

                              It is important that a SOAP processor doesn't break the processing model
                              and merely ignores the SOAP rules just because it may not be in a
                              position where it can notify the sender about the fault.

                              Henrik

                              [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383491

                              Doug Davis wrote:
                              >
                              >I see 3 choices:
                              > 1 - ignore it
                              > 2 - fault back to the server
                              > 3 - fault back to the client
                              >
                              >While 2 is probably what "should" happen, I doubt many
                              >will be able to support this. 1 seems most likely, but
                              >scares me. 3 seems like a nice middle of the road solution.
                              >8-)
                              >
                              >Paul Kulchenko wrote:
                              >
                              >Since it's possible to return Header from server to client
                              >also, what should client do if this header has mustUnderstand
                              >attribute or wrong actor?
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.