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

Re: [soapbuilders] Logging Intermediary

Expand Messages
  • Simon Fell
    Bob, you re correct [of course !], I ve updated my endpoint accordingly. Cheers Simon www.pocketsoap.com
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 3, 2001
      Bob, you're correct [of course !], I've updated my endpoint
      accordingly.

      Cheers
      Simon
      www.pocketsoap.com

      On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:07:39 -0800, in soap you wrote:

      >Hi Bob,
      >
      >I'll have to read the spec again, i thought the via elements were for
      >intermediaries, therefore the server shouldn't enter one in the
      >reverse path.
      >
      >Cheers
      >Simon
      >
      >On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:35:27 -0700, in soap you wrote:
      >
      >>Hi Simon,
      >>
      >>I notice that your RP endpoint doesn't make an entry in the "rev"
      >>reverse path element it includes in the response message (no "via"
      >>child element is present). Is this intentional? Although the reverse
      >>path element is optional, I believe that if it *is* present, each node
      >>is expected to insert a "via" element into it, including the sender.
      >>
      >>What's happening is that if the WM intermediaries see a "rev"
      >>element in the response, they insert a "via" element into it. But the
      >>result is an incomplete reverse path, since it lacks the endpoint's
      >>URL. This might be worse than having no reverse path at all.
      >>
      >>What do you think?
      >>
      >>RC
      >>
      >>
      >>> Cool :)
      >>>
      >>> There's a SOAP-RP version of the logging intermediary at
      >>> http://63.202.173.234:81/log-rp.ashx
      >>>
      >>> Cheers
      >>> Simon
      >>>
      >>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:31:20 -0700, in soap you wrote:
      >>>
      >>> >Hi Simon,
      >>> >
      >>> >Success! I've been able to route a request through one or both of
      >>> >the 2 WM nodes to your endpoint. Does your intermediary node
      >>> >support RP yet?
      >>> >
      >>> >Thanks,
      >>> >
      >>> >RC
      >>> >
      >>> >> Good point, I've updated it to set both the actor and mustUnderstand
      >>> >> in the response.
      >>> >>
      >>> >> Cheers
      >>> >> Simon
      >>> >>
      >>> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:16:27 -0700, in soap you wrote:
      >>> >>
      >>> >> >Hi Simon,
      >>> >> >
      >>> >> >Ok, when trying to use the WM intermediary, there's a problem... it's not happy because the 4s4c SOAP-RP endpoint isn't placing an "actor" attribute on the header entry it places in the *response* message, and the WM intermediary expects to find "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/actor/next"
      >>at
      >>> >a minimum. You might have noticed that the WM endpoint does this with SOAP-RP headers in the response. With none specified at all, and it being aware that it's not the "default actor", the intermediary thinks that it is not the target of the header entry. It's always seemed to me that headers
      >>in
      >>> >response messages need to specify their target, no differently than those in request messages, for all the same reasons. If there are multiple intermediaries in the path, how would header entries in the response message get processed correctly without targeting them at the proper actor (which
      >>> >might be associated with only one of possibly many nodes in the path)? Of course a routing header is most
      >>> >> >conveniently handled by using actor "next", for obvious reasons. This issue doesn't even exist until you start using intermediaries.
      >>> >> >
      >>> >> >What do you think??
      >>> >> >
      >>> >> >Anyway, looking at the wire dumps, everything is fine, other than this.
      >>> >> >
      >>> >> >RC
      >>> >> >
      >>> >> >> Assuming you can get a connection, there's a SOAP-RP enabled version
      >>> >> >> of the interop endpoint running at
      >>> >> >> http://63.202.173.234:81/ilab-rp.ashx
      >>> >> >>
      >>> >> >> All the SOAP-RP error handling isn't in place yet, but the basics
      >>> >> >> should work fine.
      >>> >> >>
      >>> >> >> Cheers
      >>> >> >> Simon
      >>> >> >>
      >>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:04:21 -0800, in soap you wrote:
      >>> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >I have a SOAP-RP enabled version of the logger running at
      >>> >> >> >http://63.202.173.234:81/log-rp.ashx which i've been testing in
      >>> >> >> >conjunction with the White Mesa SOAP-RP enabled endpoint.
      >>> >> >> >
      >>> >> >> >I'll try and get a SOAP-RP enabled endpoint up and running as well.
      >>> >> >> >
      >>> >> >> >Cheers
      >>> >> >> >Simon
      >>> >> >> >www.pocketsoap.com
      >>> >> >> >
      >>> >> >> >
      >>> >> >> >On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 07:16:53 -0700, in soap you wrote:
      >>> >> >> >
      >>> >> >> >>Hi Simon,
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>Looks good, I'll give it a shot when I get a chance. A similar thing is
      >>> >> >> >>available at the White Mesa site [1]. This is supported by the normal
      >>> >> >> >>interop endpoint at http://www.whitemesa.net/interop/std.
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>If you could be convinced to get a SOAP-RP endpoint running, interop testing
      >>> >> >> >>using multiple hop routing would be possible. A SOAP-RP endpoint is
      >>> >> >> >>available at WM also [2], with schema and WSDL definitions for the test
      >>> >> >> >>service also available. Unfortunately, no other nodes exist at the moment
      >>> >> >> >>for proper testing.
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>You may be right about toolkits in general. The WM server, because of the
      >>> >> >> >>circumstances of its origin, had to have intermediary support baked in early
      >>> >> >> >>for gateway duties.
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>I hope that more intermediary nodes can be brought up for interop testing in
      >>> >> >> >>the near future. This is a very interesting area.
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>Thanks,
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>RC
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>[1] http://www.whitemesa.net/std/relay/interop_relay_index.htm
      >>> >> >> >>[2] http://www.whitemesa.com/wmsoapsvc_rp.htm
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>> As an experiment in building SOAP intermediaries, i put together a
      >>> >> >> >>> simple intermediary that does request/response logging, and a log
      >>> >> >> >>> viewer.
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>> There's a request Header that indicates the next hop that the request
      >>> >> >> >>> should be sent to [this should probably be moved to SOAP-RP], and the
      >>> >> >> >>> response contains a header with the link to the viewer page for that
      >>> >> >> >>> capture.
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>> Here's an example request/response with the headers populated
      >>> >> >> >>> <S:Envelope
      >>> >> >> >>> S:encodingStyle='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/'
      >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:S='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/'
      >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:E='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/'
      >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:a='http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/'
      >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:b='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance'
      >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:c='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
      >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:d='http://soapinterop.org/'>
      >>> >> >> >>> <S:Header>
      >>> >> >> >>> <a:Log S:actor='http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/'>
      >>> >> >> >>> <a:NextHop>http://mayhem/ilab/soap.asp</a:NextHop>
      >>> >> >> >>> </a:Log>
      >>> >> >> >>> </S:Header>
      >>> >> >> >>> <S:Body><d:echoString>
      >>> >> >> >>> <inputString b:type='c:string'>Hello World !</inputString>
      >>> >> >> >>> </d:echoString>
      >>> >> >> >>> </S:Body></S:Envelope>
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>> <SOAP-ENV:Envelope
      >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
      >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:SOAP-ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"
      >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
      >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>> SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/">
      >>> >> >> >>> <sp:Header xmlns:sp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
      >>> >> >> >>> <lg:logResults
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>xmlns:lg="http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/">http://63.202.173.234:
      >>> >> >> >>81/logViewer.aspx?id=9550da03-bf88-425a-87bd-286e97fba9eb</lg:logResults>
      >>> >> >> >>> </sp:Header>
      >>> >> >> >>> <SOAP-ENV:Body>
      >>> >> >> >>> <m:echoStringResponse xmlns:m="http://soapinterop.org/">
      >>> >> >> >>> <outputString xsi:type="xsd:string">Hello World !</outputString>
      >>> >> >> >>> </m:echoStringResponse>
      >>> >> >> >>> </SOAP-ENV:Body></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>> I'm coming to the conclusion that your average soap client/server
      >>> >> >> >>> toolkit doesn't make a good starting point for building
      >>> >> >> >>> intermediaries, what do you think ?
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>> The service is up and running at http://63.202.173.234:81/log.ashx if
      >>> >> >> >>> anyone wants to try it out.
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>> Cheers
      >>> >> >> >>> Simon
      >>> >> >> >>> www.pocketsoap.com
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
      >>> >> >> >>> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
      >>> >> >> >>implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>> 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/
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>>
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>-----------------------------------------------------------------
      >>> >> >> >>This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and
      >>int
      >>> >eroperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >>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/
      >>> >> >> >>
      >>> >> >> >
      >>> >> >> >
      >>> >> >> >
      >>> >> >> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
      >>> >> >> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and i
      >>nte
      >>> >roperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      >>> >> >> >
      >>> >> >> >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/
      >>> >> >> >
      >>> >> >>
      >>> >> >>
      >>> >> >>
      >>> >> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
      >>> >> >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and in
      >>ter
      >>> >operability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      >>> >> >>
      >>> >> >> 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/
      >>> >> >>
      >>> >> >>
      >>> >> >>
      >>> >> >
      >>> >> >
      >>> >> >
      >>> >> >
      >>> >> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
      >>> >> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and inte
      >>rop
      >>> >erability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      >>> >> >
      >>> >> >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/
      >>> >> >
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
      >>> >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and inter
      >>ope
      >>> >rability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      >>> >>
      >>> >> 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/
      >>> >>
      >>> >
      >>> >
      >>> >
      >>> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
      >>> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interop
      >>erability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      >>> >
      >>> >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/
      >>> >
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
      >>> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interope
      >>rability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      >>>
      >>> 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/
      >>>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>-----------------------------------------------------------------
      >>This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      >>
      >>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/
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >-----------------------------------------------------------------
      >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      >
      >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/
      >
    • yzhang@motherbot.com
      Hi Simon, When I sent the following message to log-rp.ashx:
      Message 2 of 28 , Nov 3, 2001
        Hi Simon,

        When I sent the following message to log-rp.ashx:


        <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
        <SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns:SOAP-
        ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
        xmlns:tns="http://www.xmethods.net/sd/TemperatureService.wsdl"
        xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"
        xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/"
        xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:SOAP-
        ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" SOAP-
        ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"><SOAP-
        ENV:Header><mm:path xmlns:mm="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/rp/" SOAP-
        ENV:actor="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/actor/next" SOAP-
        ENV:mustUnderstand="1"><mm:action></mm:action><mm:to>http://services.x
        methods.net:80/soap/servlet/rpcrouter</mm:to><mm:id>5efd520d-d0c4-
        11d5-8fe6-
        00105a24f6d1</mm:id><mm:fwd><mm:via>http://63.202.173.234:81/log-
        rp.ashx</mm:via></mm:fwd><mm:rev><mm:via/></mm:rev></mm:path></SOAP-
        ENV:Header> <SOAP-ENV:Body><mns:getTemp xmlns:mns="urn:xmethods-
        Temperature"><zipcode
        xsi:type="xsd:string">20876</zipcode></mns:getTemp></SOAP-ENV:Body>
        </SOAP-ENV:Envelope>

        I got a fault message back,

        <sp:Envelope
        xmlns:sp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"><sp:Body><sp:Faul
        t><faultcode>sp:Client</faultcode><faultstring>Value null was found
        where an instance of an object was
        required.</faultstring><faultactor>http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2
        001/01/</faultactor><detail><lg:StackTrace
        xmlns:lg="http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/"> at
        logiRP.InboundRPProcessing(XmlNode rpNode) in C:\soap\dotnetsoap\log-
        rp.ashx:line 149

        at logiRP.ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) in
        C:\soap\dotnetsoap\log-rp.ashx:line
        60</lg:StackTrace></detail></sp:Fault></sp:Body></sp:Envelope>


        Any idea what's wong in the request?

        Thanks!

        Yunhao




        --- In soapbuilders@y..., Simon Fell <soap@z...> wrote:
        > Bob, you're correct [of course !], I've updated my endpoint
        > accordingly.
        >
        > Cheers
        > Simon
        > www.pocketsoap.com
        >
        > On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:07:39 -0800, in soap you wrote:
        >
        > >Hi Bob,
        > >
        > >I'll have to read the spec again, i thought the via elements were
        for
        > >intermediaries, therefore the server shouldn't enter one in the
        > >reverse path.
        > >
        > >Cheers
        > >Simon
        > >
        > >On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:35:27 -0700, in soap you wrote:
        > >
        > >>Hi Simon,
        > >>
        > >>I notice that your RP endpoint doesn't make an entry in the "rev"
        > >>reverse path element it includes in the response message
        (no "via"
        > >>child element is present). Is this intentional? Although the
        reverse
        > >>path element is optional, I believe that if it *is* present, each
        node
        > >>is expected to insert a "via" element into it, including the
        sender.
        > >>
        > >>What's happening is that if the WM intermediaries see a "rev"
        > >>element in the response, they insert a "via" element into it. But
        the
        > >>result is an incomplete reverse path, since it lacks the
        endpoint's
        > >>URL. This might be worse than having no reverse path at all.
        > >>
        > >>What do you think?
        > >>
        > >>RC
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>> Cool :)
        > >>>
        > >>> There's a SOAP-RP version of the logging intermediary at
        > >>> http://63.202.173.234:81/log-rp.ashx
        > >>>
        > >>> Cheers
        > >>> Simon
        > >>>
        > >>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:31:20 -0700, in soap you wrote:
        > >>>
        > >>> >Hi Simon,
        > >>> >
        > >>> >Success! I've been able to route a request through one or both
        of
        > >>> >the 2 WM nodes to your endpoint. Does your intermediary node
        > >>> >support RP yet?
        > >>> >
        > >>> >Thanks,
        > >>> >
        > >>> >RC
        > >>> >
        > >>> >> Good point, I've updated it to set both the actor and
        mustUnderstand
        > >>> >> in the response.
        > >>> >>
        > >>> >> Cheers
        > >>> >> Simon
        > >>> >>
        > >>> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:16:27 -0700, in soap you wrote:
        > >>> >>
        > >>> >> >Hi Simon,
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >Ok, when trying to use the WM intermediary, there's a
        problem... it's not happy because the 4s4c SOAP-RP endpoint isn't
        placing an "actor" attribute on the header entry it places in the
        *response* message, and the WM intermediary expects to
        find "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/actor/next"
        > >>at
        > >>> >a minimum. You might have noticed that the WM endpoint does
        this with SOAP-RP headers in the response. With none specified at
        all, and it being aware that it's not the "default actor", the
        intermediary thinks that it is not the target of the header entry.
        It's always seemed to me that headers
        > >>in
        > >>> >response messages need to specify their target, no differently
        than those in request messages, for all the same reasons. If there
        are multiple intermediaries in the path, how would header entries in
        the response message get processed correctly without targeting them
        at the proper actor (which
        > >>> >might be associated with only one of possibly many nodes in
        the path)? Of course a routing header is most
        > >>> >> >conveniently handled by using actor "next", for obvious
        reasons. This issue doesn't even exist until you start using
        intermediaries.
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >What do you think??
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >Anyway, looking at the wire dumps, everything is fine,
        other than this.
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >RC
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >> Assuming you can get a connection, there's a SOAP-RP
        enabled version
        > >>> >> >> of the interop endpoint running at
        > >>> >> >> http://63.202.173.234:81/ilab-rp.ashx
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> All the SOAP-RP error handling isn't in place yet, but
        the basics
        > >>> >> >> should work fine.
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> Cheers
        > >>> >> >> Simon
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:04:21 -0800, in soap you wrote:
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >I have a SOAP-RP enabled version of the logger running
        at
        > >>> >> >> >http://63.202.173.234:81/log-rp.ashx which i've been
        testing in
        > >>> >> >> >conjunction with the White Mesa SOAP-RP enabled endpoint.
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >> >I'll try and get a SOAP-RP enabled endpoint up and
        running as well.
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >> >Cheers
        > >>> >> >> >Simon
        > >>> >> >> >www.pocketsoap.com
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >> >On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 07:16:53 -0700, in soap you wrote:
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >> >>Hi Simon,
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>Looks good, I'll give it a shot when I get a chance. A
        similar thing is
        > >>> >> >> >>available at the White Mesa site [1]. This is supported
        by the normal
        > >>> >> >> >>interop endpoint at
        http://www.whitemesa.net/interop/std.
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>If you could be convinced to get a SOAP-RP endpoint
        running, interop testing
        > >>> >> >> >>using multiple hop routing would be possible. A SOAP-RP
        endpoint is
        > >>> >> >> >>available at WM also [2], with schema and WSDL
        definitions for the test
        > >>> >> >> >>service also available. Unfortunately, no other nodes
        exist at the moment
        > >>> >> >> >>for proper testing.
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>You may be right about toolkits in general. The WM
        server, because of the
        > >>> >> >> >>circumstances of its origin, had to have intermediary
        support baked in early
        > >>> >> >> >>for gateway duties.
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>I hope that more intermediary nodes can be brought up
        for interop testing in
        > >>> >> >> >>the near future. This is a very interesting area.
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>Thanks,
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>RC
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>[1]
        http://www.whitemesa.net/std/relay/interop_relay_index.htm
        > >>> >> >> >>[2] http://www.whitemesa.com/wmsoapsvc_rp.htm
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>> As an experiment in building SOAP intermediaries, i
        put together a
        > >>> >> >> >>> simple intermediary that does request/response
        logging, and a log
        > >>> >> >> >>> viewer.
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>> There's a request Header that indicates the next hop
        that the request
        > >>> >> >> >>> should be sent to [this should probably be moved to
        SOAP-RP], and the
        > >>> >> >> >>> response contains a header with the link to the
        viewer page for that
        > >>> >> >> >>> capture.
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>> Here's an example request/response with the headers
        populated
        > >>> >> >> >>> <S:Envelope
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        S:encodingStyle='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/'
        > >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:S='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/'
        > >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:E='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/'
        > >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:a='http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/'
        > >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:b='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance'
        > >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:c='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
        > >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:d='http://soapinterop.org/'>
        > >>> >> >> >>> <S:Header>
        > >>> >> >> >>> <a:Log
        S:actor='http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/'>
        > >>> >> >> >>> <a:NextHop>http://mayhem/ilab/soap.asp</a:NextHop>
        > >>> >> >> >>> </a:Log>
        > >>> >> >> >>> </S:Header>
        > >>> >> >> >>> <S:Body><d:echoString>
        > >>> >> >> >>> <inputString b:type='c:string'>Hello World !
        </inputString>
        > >>> >> >> >>> </d:echoString>
        > >>> >> >> >>> </S:Body></S:Envelope>
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>> <SOAP-ENV:Envelope
        > >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:SOAP-
        ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
        > >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:SOAP-
        ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"
        > >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
        > >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>> SOAP-
        ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/">
        > >>> >> >> >>> <sp:Header
        xmlns:sp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
        > >>> >> >> >>> <lg:logResults
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >>
        >>xmlns:lg="http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/">http://63.202.
        173.234:
        > >>> >> >> >>81/logViewer.aspx?id=9550da03-bf88-425a-87bd-
        286e97fba9eb</lg:logResults>
        > >>> >> >> >>> </sp:Header>
        > >>> >> >> >>> <SOAP-ENV:Body>
        > >>> >> >> >>> <m:echoStringResponse
        xmlns:m="http://soapinterop.org/">
        > >>> >> >> >>> <outputString xsi:type="xsd:string">Hello World !
        </outputString>
        > >>> >> >> >>> </m:echoStringResponse>
        > >>> >> >> >>> </SOAP-ENV:Body></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>> I'm coming to the conclusion that your average soap
        client/server
        > >>> >> >> >>> toolkit doesn't make a good starting point for
        building
        > >>> >> >> >>> intermediaries, what do you think ?
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>> The service is up and running at
        http://63.202.173.234:81/log.ashx if
        > >>> >> >> >>> anyone wants to try it out.
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>> Cheers
        > >>> >> >> >>> Simon
        > >>> >> >> >>> www.pocketsoap.com
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------
        -----------
        > >>> >> >> >>> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
        implementations to discuss
        > >>> >> >> >>implementation and interoperability issues. Please
        stay on-topic.
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > >>> >> >> >>> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>>
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------
        ---------
        > >>> >> >> >>This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
        implementations to discuss implementation and
        > >>int
        > >>> >eroperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > >>> >> >> >>soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >>> >> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >> >---------------------------------------------------------
        --------
        > >>> >> >> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
        implementations to discuss implementation and i
        > >>nte
        > >>> >roperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > >>> >> >> >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >>> >> >> >
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
        -------
        > >>> >> >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
        implementations to discuss implementation and in
        > >>ter
        > >>> >operability issues. Please stay on-topic.
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > >>> >> >> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >>
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >------------------------------------------------------------
        -----
        > >>> >> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations
        to discuss implementation and inte
        > >>rop
        > >>> >erability issues. Please stay on-topic.
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > >>> >> >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >>> >> >
        > >>> >>
        > >>> >>
        > >>> >>
        > >>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------
        ----
        > >>> >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations
        to discuss implementation and inter
        > >>ope
        > >>> >rability issues. Please stay on-topic.
        > >>> >>
        > >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > >>> >> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
        > >>> >>
        > >>> >>
        > >>> >>
        > >>> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >>> >>
        > >>> >
        > >>> >
        > >>> >
        > >>> >---------------------------------------------------------------
        --
        > >>> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
        discuss implementation and interop
        > >>erability issues. Please stay on-topic.
        > >>> >
        > >>> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > >>> >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
        > >>> >
        > >>> >
        > >>> >
        > >>> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >>> >
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
        -
        > >>> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
        discuss implementation and interope
        > >>rability issues. Please stay on-topic.
        > >>>
        > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > >>> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >>>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>-----------------------------------------------------------------
        > >>This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
        discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-
        topic.
        > >>
        > >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > >>soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >>
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >-----------------------------------------------------------------
        > >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
        discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-
        topic.
        > >
        > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >
      • Simon Fell
        The problem is that the response from the final destination doesn t have a SOAP-RP header in it. The final destination also has to support SOAP-RP. Cheers
        Message 3 of 28 , Nov 3, 2001
          The problem is that the response from the final destination doesn't
          have a SOAP-RP header in it. The final destination also has to support
          SOAP-RP.

          Cheers
          Simon

          On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 01:55:58 -0000, in soap you wrote:

          >Hi Simon,
          >
          >When I sent the following message to log-rp.ashx:
          >
          >
          ><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
          ><SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns:SOAP-
          >ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
          >xmlns:tns="http://www.xmethods.net/sd/TemperatureService.wsdl"
          >xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"
          >xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/"
          >xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:SOAP-
          >ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" SOAP-
          >ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"><SOAP-
          >ENV:Header><mm:path xmlns:mm="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/rp/" SOAP-
          >ENV:actor="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/actor/next" SOAP-
          >ENV:mustUnderstand="1"><mm:action></mm:action><mm:to>http://services.x
          >methods.net:80/soap/servlet/rpcrouter</mm:to><mm:id>5efd520d-d0c4-
          >11d5-8fe6-
          >00105a24f6d1</mm:id><mm:fwd><mm:via>http://63.202.173.234:81/log-
          >rp.ashx</mm:via></mm:fwd><mm:rev><mm:via/></mm:rev></mm:path></SOAP-
          >ENV:Header> <SOAP-ENV:Body><mns:getTemp xmlns:mns="urn:xmethods-
          >Temperature"><zipcode
          >xsi:type="xsd:string">20876</zipcode></mns:getTemp></SOAP-ENV:Body>
          ></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
          >
          >I got a fault message back,
          >
          ><sp:Envelope
          >xmlns:sp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"><sp:Body><sp:Faul
          >t><faultcode>sp:Client</faultcode><faultstring>Value null was found
          >where an instance of an object was
          >required.</faultstring><faultactor>http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2
          >001/01/</faultactor><detail><lg:StackTrace
          >xmlns:lg="http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/"> at
          >logiRP.InboundRPProcessing(XmlNode rpNode) in C:\soap\dotnetsoap\log-
          >rp.ashx:line 149
          >
          > at logiRP.ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) in
          >C:\soap\dotnetsoap\log-rp.ashx:line
          >60</lg:StackTrace></detail></sp:Fault></sp:Body></sp:Envelope>
          >
          >
          >Any idea what's wong in the request?
          >
          >Thanks!
          >
          >Yunhao
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >--- In soapbuilders@y..., Simon Fell <soap@z...> wrote:
          >> Bob, you're correct [of course !], I've updated my endpoint
          >> accordingly.
          >>
          >> Cheers
          >> Simon
          >> www.pocketsoap.com
          >>
          >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:07:39 -0800, in soap you wrote:
          >>
          >> >Hi Bob,
          >> >
          >> >I'll have to read the spec again, i thought the via elements were
          >for
          >> >intermediaries, therefore the server shouldn't enter one in the
          >> >reverse path.
          >> >
          >> >Cheers
          >> >Simon
          >> >
          >> >On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:35:27 -0700, in soap you wrote:
          >> >
          >> >>Hi Simon,
          >> >>
          >> >>I notice that your RP endpoint doesn't make an entry in the "rev"
          >> >>reverse path element it includes in the response message
          >(no "via"
          >> >>child element is present). Is this intentional? Although the
          >reverse
          >> >>path element is optional, I believe that if it *is* present, each
          >node
          >> >>is expected to insert a "via" element into it, including the
          >sender.
          >> >>
          >> >>What's happening is that if the WM intermediaries see a "rev"
          >> >>element in the response, they insert a "via" element into it. But
          >the
          >> >>result is an incomplete reverse path, since it lacks the
          >endpoint's
          >> >>URL. This might be worse than having no reverse path at all.
          >> >>
          >> >>What do you think?
          >> >>
          >> >>RC
          >> >>
          >> >>
          >> >>> Cool :)
          >> >>>
          >> >>> There's a SOAP-RP version of the logging intermediary at
          >> >>> http://63.202.173.234:81/log-rp.ashx
          >> >>>
          >> >>> Cheers
          >> >>> Simon
          >> >>>
          >> >>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:31:20 -0700, in soap you wrote:
          >> >>>
          >> >>> >Hi Simon,
          >> >>> >
          >> >>> >Success! I've been able to route a request through one or both
          >of
          >> >>> >the 2 WM nodes to your endpoint. Does your intermediary node
          >> >>> >support RP yet?
          >> >>> >
          >> >>> >Thanks,
          >> >>> >
          >> >>> >RC
          >> >>> >
          >> >>> >> Good point, I've updated it to set both the actor and
          >mustUnderstand
          >> >>> >> in the response.
          >> >>> >>
          >> >>> >> Cheers
          >> >>> >> Simon
          >> >>> >>
          >> >>> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:16:27 -0700, in soap you wrote:
          >> >>> >>
          >> >>> >> >Hi Simon,
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >Ok, when trying to use the WM intermediary, there's a
          >problem... it's not happy because the 4s4c SOAP-RP endpoint isn't
          >placing an "actor" attribute on the header entry it places in the
          >*response* message, and the WM intermediary expects to
          >find "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/actor/next"
          >> >>at
          >> >>> >a minimum. You might have noticed that the WM endpoint does
          >this with SOAP-RP headers in the response. With none specified at
          >all, and it being aware that it's not the "default actor", the
          >intermediary thinks that it is not the target of the header entry.
          >It's always seemed to me that headers
          >> >>in
          >> >>> >response messages need to specify their target, no differently
          >than those in request messages, for all the same reasons. If there
          >are multiple intermediaries in the path, how would header entries in
          >the response message get processed correctly without targeting them
          >at the proper actor (which
          >> >>> >might be associated with only one of possibly many nodes in
          >the path)? Of course a routing header is most
          >> >>> >> >conveniently handled by using actor "next", for obvious
          >reasons. This issue doesn't even exist until you start using
          >intermediaries.
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >What do you think??
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >Anyway, looking at the wire dumps, everything is fine,
          >other than this.
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >RC
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> Assuming you can get a connection, there's a SOAP-RP
          >enabled version
          >> >>> >> >> of the interop endpoint running at
          >> >>> >> >> http://63.202.173.234:81/ilab-rp.ashx
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> All the SOAP-RP error handling isn't in place yet, but
          >the basics
          >> >>> >> >> should work fine.
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> Cheers
          >> >>> >> >> Simon
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:04:21 -0800, in soap you wrote:
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >I have a SOAP-RP enabled version of the logger running
          >at
          >> >>> >> >> >http://63.202.173.234:81/log-rp.ashx which i've been
          >testing in
          >> >>> >> >> >conjunction with the White Mesa SOAP-RP enabled endpoint.
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> >I'll try and get a SOAP-RP enabled endpoint up and
          >running as well.
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> >Cheers
          >> >>> >> >> >Simon
          >> >>> >> >> >www.pocketsoap.com
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> >On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 07:16:53 -0700, in soap you wrote:
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> >>Hi Simon,
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>Looks good, I'll give it a shot when I get a chance. A
          >similar thing is
          >> >>> >> >> >>available at the White Mesa site [1]. This is supported
          >by the normal
          >> >>> >> >> >>interop endpoint at
          >http://www.whitemesa.net/interop/std.
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>If you could be convinced to get a SOAP-RP endpoint
          >running, interop testing
          >> >>> >> >> >>using multiple hop routing would be possible. A SOAP-RP
          >endpoint is
          >> >>> >> >> >>available at WM also [2], with schema and WSDL
          >definitions for the test
          >> >>> >> >> >>service also available. Unfortunately, no other nodes
          >exist at the moment
          >> >>> >> >> >>for proper testing.
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>You may be right about toolkits in general. The WM
          >server, because of the
          >> >>> >> >> >>circumstances of its origin, had to have intermediary
          >support baked in early
          >> >>> >> >> >>for gateway duties.
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>I hope that more intermediary nodes can be brought up
          >for interop testing in
          >> >>> >> >> >>the near future. This is a very interesting area.
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>Thanks,
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>RC
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>[1]
          >http://www.whitemesa.net/std/relay/interop_relay_index.htm
          >> >>> >> >> >>[2] http://www.whitemesa.com/wmsoapsvc_rp.htm
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> As an experiment in building SOAP intermediaries, i
          >put together a
          >> >>> >> >> >>> simple intermediary that does request/response
          >logging, and a log
          >> >>> >> >> >>> viewer.
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> There's a request Header that indicates the next hop
          >that the request
          >> >>> >> >> >>> should be sent to [this should probably be moved to
          >SOAP-RP], and the
          >> >>> >> >> >>> response contains a header with the link to the
          >viewer page for that
          >> >>> >> >> >>> capture.
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> Here's an example request/response with the headers
          >populated
          >> >>> >> >> >>> <S:Envelope
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >S:encodingStyle='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/'
          >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:S='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/'
          >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:E='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/'
          >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:a='http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/'
          >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:b='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance'
          >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:c='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
          >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:d='http://soapinterop.org/'>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> <S:Header>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> <a:Log
          >S:actor='http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/'>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> <a:NextHop>http://mayhem/ilab/soap.asp</a:NextHop>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> </a:Log>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> </S:Header>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> <S:Body><d:echoString>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> <inputString b:type='c:string'>Hello World !
          ></inputString>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> </d:echoString>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> </S:Body></S:Envelope>
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> <SOAP-ENV:Envelope
          >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:SOAP-
          >ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
          >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:SOAP-
          >ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"
          >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
          >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> SOAP-
          >ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/">
          >> >>> >> >> >>> <sp:Header
          >xmlns:sp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
          >> >>> >> >> >>> <lg:logResults
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >>
          >>>xmlns:lg="http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/">http://63.202.
          >173.234:
          >> >>> >> >> >>81/logViewer.aspx?id=9550da03-bf88-425a-87bd-
          >286e97fba9eb</lg:logResults>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> </sp:Header>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> <SOAP-ENV:Body>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> <m:echoStringResponse
          >xmlns:m="http://soapinterop.org/">
          >> >>> >> >> >>> <outputString xsi:type="xsd:string">Hello World !
          ></outputString>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> </m:echoStringResponse>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> </SOAP-ENV:Body></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> I'm coming to the conclusion that your average soap
          >client/server
          >> >>> >> >> >>> toolkit doesn't make a good starting point for
          >building
          >> >>> >> >> >>> intermediaries, what do you think ?
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> The service is up and running at
          >http://63.202.173.234:81/log.ashx if
          >> >>> >> >> >>> anyone wants to try it out.
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> Cheers
          >> >>> >> >> >>> Simon
          >> >>> >> >> >>> www.pocketsoap.com
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------
          >-----------
          >> >>> >> >> >>> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
          >implementations to discuss
          >> >>> >> >> >>implementation and interoperability issues. Please
          >stay on-topic.
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >> >>> >> >> >>> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>>
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------
          >---------
          >> >>> >> >> >>This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
          >implementations to discuss implementation and
          >> >>int
          >> >>> >eroperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >> >>> >> >> >>soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >> >>> >> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> >---------------------------------------------------------
          >--------
          >> >>> >> >> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
          >implementations to discuss implementation and i
          >> >>nte
          >> >>> >roperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >> >>> >> >> >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >> >>> >> >> >
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
          >-------
          >> >>> >> >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
          >implementations to discuss implementation and in
          >> >>ter
          >> >>> >operability issues. Please stay on-topic.
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >> >>> >> >> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >>
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >------------------------------------------------------------
          >-----
          >> >>> >> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations
          >to discuss implementation and inte
          >> >>rop
          >> >>> >erability issues. Please stay on-topic.
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >> >>> >> >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >> >>> >> >
          >> >>> >>
          >> >>> >>
          >> >>> >>
          >> >>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------
          >----
          >> >>> >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations
          >to discuss implementation and inter
          >> >>ope
          >> >>> >rability issues. Please stay on-topic.
          >> >>> >>
          >> >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >> >>> >> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
          >> >>> >>
          >> >>> >>
          >> >>> >>
          >> >>> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >> >>> >>
          >> >>> >
          >> >>> >
          >> >>> >
          >> >>> >---------------------------------------------------------------
        • yzhang@motherbot.com
          Thanks, Simon! I really hoped the final targets won t need to when use a request/response protocal. So that they can concentrate on building services, and
          Message 4 of 28 , Nov 3, 2001
            Thanks, Simon! I really hoped the final targets won't need to when
            use a request/response protocal. So that they can concentrate on
            building services, and aren't worry about routing at all. A logging
            intermediary based on SOAP-RP would fail in most of the situations,
            huh?

            Cheers,

            Yunhao



            --- In soapbuilders@y..., Simon Fell <soap@z...> wrote:
            > The problem is that the response from the final destination doesn't
            > have a SOAP-RP header in it. The final destination also has to
            support
            > SOAP-RP.
            >
            > Cheers
            > Simon
            >
            > On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 01:55:58 -0000, in soap you wrote:
            >
            > >Hi Simon,
            > >
            > >When I sent the following message to log-rp.ashx:
            > >
            > >
            > ><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
            > ><SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns:SOAP-
            > >ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
            > >xmlns:tns="http://www.xmethods.net/sd/TemperatureService.wsdl"
            > >xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"
            > >xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/"
            > >xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:SOAP-
            > >ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" SOAP-
            >
            >ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"><SOAP-
            > >ENV:Header><mm:path xmlns:mm="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/rp/" SOAP-
            > >ENV:actor="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/actor/next" SOAP-
            >
            >ENV:mustUnderstand="1"><mm:action></mm:action><mm:to>http://services.
            x
            > >methods.net:80/soap/servlet/rpcrouter</mm:to><mm:id>5efd520d-d0c4-
            > >11d5-8fe6-
            > >00105a24f6d1</mm:id><mm:fwd><mm:via>http://63.202.173.234:81/log-
            >
            >rp.ashx</mm:via></mm:fwd><mm:rev><mm:via/></mm:rev></mm:path></SOAP-
            > >ENV:Header> <SOAP-ENV:Body><mns:getTemp xmlns:mns="urn:xmethods-
            > >Temperature"><zipcode
            > >xsi:type="xsd:string">20876</zipcode></mns:getTemp></SOAP-
            ENV:Body>
            > ></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
            > >
            > >I got a fault message back,
            > >
            > ><sp:Envelope
            >
            >xmlns:sp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"><sp:Body><sp:Fau
            l
            > >t><faultcode>sp:Client</faultcode><faultstring>Value null was
            found
            > >where an instance of an object was
            >
            >required.</faultstring><faultactor>http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/
            2
            > >001/01/</faultactor><detail><lg:StackTrace
            > >xmlns:lg="http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/"> at
            > >logiRP.InboundRPProcessing(XmlNode rpNode) in
            C:\soap\dotnetsoap\log-
            > >rp.ashx:line 149
            > >
            > > at logiRP.ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) in
            > >C:\soap\dotnetsoap\log-rp.ashx:line
            > >60</lg:StackTrace></detail></sp:Fault></sp:Body></sp:Envelope>
            > >
            > >
            > >Any idea what's wong in the request?
            > >
            > >Thanks!
            > >
            > >Yunhao
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >--- In soapbuilders@y..., Simon Fell <soap@z...> wrote:
            > >> Bob, you're correct [of course !], I've updated my endpoint
            > >> accordingly.
            > >>
            > >> Cheers
            > >> Simon
            > >> www.pocketsoap.com
            > >>
            > >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:07:39 -0800, in soap you wrote:
            > >>
            > >> >Hi Bob,
            > >> >
            > >> >I'll have to read the spec again, i thought the via elements
            were
            > >for
            > >> >intermediaries, therefore the server shouldn't enter one in the
            > >> >reverse path.
            > >> >
            > >> >Cheers
            > >> >Simon
            > >> >
            > >> >On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:35:27 -0700, in soap you wrote:
            > >> >
            > >> >>Hi Simon,
            > >> >>
            > >> >>I notice that your RP endpoint doesn't make an entry in
            the "rev"
            > >> >>reverse path element it includes in the response message
            > >(no "via"
            > >> >>child element is present). Is this intentional? Although the
            > >reverse
            > >> >>path element is optional, I believe that if it *is* present,
            each
            > >node
            > >> >>is expected to insert a "via" element into it, including the
            > >sender.
            > >> >>
            > >> >>What's happening is that if the WM intermediaries see a "rev"
            > >> >>element in the response, they insert a "via" element into it.
            But
            > >the
            > >> >>result is an incomplete reverse path, since it lacks the
            > >endpoint's
            > >> >>URL. This might be worse than having no reverse path at all.
            > >> >>
            > >> >>What do you think?
            > >> >>
            > >> >>RC
            > >> >>
            > >> >>
            > >> >>> Cool :)
            > >> >>>
            > >> >>> There's a SOAP-RP version of the logging intermediary at
            > >> >>> http://63.202.173.234:81/log-rp.ashx
            > >> >>>
            > >> >>> Cheers
            > >> >>> Simon
            > >> >>>
            > >> >>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:31:20 -0700, in soap you wrote:
            > >> >>>
            > >> >>> >Hi Simon,
            > >> >>> >
            > >> >>> >Success! I've been able to route a request through one or
            both
            > >of
            > >> >>> >the 2 WM nodes to your endpoint. Does your intermediary
            node
            > >> >>> >support RP yet?
            > >> >>> >
            > >> >>> >Thanks,
            > >> >>> >
            > >> >>> >RC
            > >> >>> >
            > >> >>> >> Good point, I've updated it to set both the actor and
            > >mustUnderstand
            > >> >>> >> in the response.
            > >> >>> >>
            > >> >>> >> Cheers
            > >> >>> >> Simon
            > >> >>> >>
            > >> >>> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:16:27 -0700, in soap you wrote:
            > >> >>> >>
            > >> >>> >> >Hi Simon,
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >Ok, when trying to use the WM intermediary, there's a
            > >problem... it's not happy because the 4s4c SOAP-RP endpoint isn't
            > >placing an "actor" attribute on the header entry it places in the
            > >*response* message, and the WM intermediary expects to
            > >find "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/actor/next"
            > >> >>at
            > >> >>> >a minimum. You might have noticed that the WM endpoint does
            > >this with SOAP-RP headers in the response. With none specified at
            > >all, and it being aware that it's not the "default actor", the
            > >intermediary thinks that it is not the target of the header entry.
            > >It's always seemed to me that headers
            > >> >>in
            > >> >>> >response messages need to specify their target, no
            differently
            > >than those in request messages, for all the same reasons. If there
            > >are multiple intermediaries in the path, how would header entries
            in
            > >the response message get processed correctly without targeting
            them
            > >at the proper actor (which
            > >> >>> >might be associated with only one of possibly many nodes in
            > >the path)? Of course a routing header is most
            > >> >>> >> >conveniently handled by using actor "next", for obvious
            > >reasons. This issue doesn't even exist until you start using
            > >intermediaries.
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >What do you think??
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >Anyway, looking at the wire dumps, everything is fine,
            > >other than this.
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >RC
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> Assuming you can get a connection, there's a SOAP-RP
            > >enabled version
            > >> >>> >> >> of the interop endpoint running at
            > >> >>> >> >> http://63.202.173.234:81/ilab-rp.ashx
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> All the SOAP-RP error handling isn't in place yet, but
            > >the basics
            > >> >>> >> >> should work fine.
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> Cheers
            > >> >>> >> >> Simon
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:04:21 -0800, in soap you wrote:
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >I have a SOAP-RP enabled version of the logger
            running
            > >at
            > >> >>> >> >> >http://63.202.173.234:81/log-rp.ashx which i've been
            > >testing in
            > >> >>> >> >> >conjunction with the White Mesa SOAP-RP enabled
            endpoint.
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> >I'll try and get a SOAP-RP enabled endpoint up and
            > >running as well.
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> >Cheers
            > >> >>> >> >> >Simon
            > >> >>> >> >> >www.pocketsoap.com
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> >On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 07:16:53 -0700, in soap you wrote:
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> >>Hi Simon,
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>Looks good, I'll give it a shot when I get a chance.
            A
            > >similar thing is
            > >> >>> >> >> >>available at the White Mesa site [1]. This is
            supported
            > >by the normal
            > >> >>> >> >> >>interop endpoint at
            > >http://www.whitemesa.net/interop/std.
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>If you could be convinced to get a SOAP-RP endpoint
            > >running, interop testing
            > >> >>> >> >> >>using multiple hop routing would be possible. A SOAP-
            RP
            > >endpoint is
            > >> >>> >> >> >>available at WM also [2], with schema and WSDL
            > >definitions for the test
            > >> >>> >> >> >>service also available. Unfortunately, no other
            nodes
            > >exist at the moment
            > >> >>> >> >> >>for proper testing.
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>You may be right about toolkits in general. The WM
            > >server, because of the
            > >> >>> >> >> >>circumstances of its origin, had to have
            intermediary
            > >support baked in early
            > >> >>> >> >> >>for gateway duties.
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>I hope that more intermediary nodes can be brought
            up
            > >for interop testing in
            > >> >>> >> >> >>the near future. This is a very interesting area.
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>Thanks,
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>RC
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>[1]
            > >http://www.whitemesa.net/std/relay/interop_relay_index.htm
            > >> >>> >> >> >>[2] http://www.whitemesa.com/wmsoapsvc_rp.htm
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> As an experiment in building SOAP intermediaries,
            i
            > >put together a
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> simple intermediary that does request/response
            > >logging, and a log
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> viewer.
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> There's a request Header that indicates the next
            hop
            > >that the request
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> should be sent to [this should probably be moved
            to
            > >SOAP-RP], and the
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> response contains a header with the link to the
            > >viewer page for that
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> capture.
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> Here's an example request/response with the
            headers
            > >populated
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> <S:Envelope
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >S:encodingStyle='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/'
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:S='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/'
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:E='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/'
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            xmlns:a='http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/'
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:b='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance'
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:c='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:d='http://soapinterop.org/'>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> <S:Header>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> <a:Log
            > >S:actor='http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/'>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> <a:NextHop>http://mayhem/ilab/soap.asp</a:NextHop>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> </a:Log>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> </S:Header>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> <S:Body><d:echoString>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> <inputString b:type='c:string'>Hello World !
            > ></inputString>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> </d:echoString>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> </S:Body></S:Envelope>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> <SOAP-ENV:Envelope
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:SOAP-
            > >ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:SOAP-
            > >ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-
            instance"
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> SOAP-
            > >ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/">
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> <sp:Header
            > >xmlns:sp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> <lg:logResults
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >>
            >
            >>>xmlns:lg="http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/">http://63.202
            .
            > >173.234:
            > >> >>> >> >> >>81/logViewer.aspx?id=9550da03-bf88-425a-87bd-
            > >286e97fba9eb</lg:logResults>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> </sp:Header>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> <SOAP-ENV:Body>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> <m:echoStringResponse
            > >xmlns:m="http://soapinterop.org/">
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> <outputString xsi:type="xsd:string">Hello World !
            > ></outputString>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> </m:echoStringResponse>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> </SOAP-ENV:Body></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> I'm coming to the conclusion that your average
            soap
            > >client/server
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> toolkit doesn't make a good starting point for
            > >building
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> intermediaries, what do you think ?
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> The service is up and running at
            > >http://63.202.173.234:81/log.ashx if
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> anyone wants to try it out.
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> Cheers
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> Simon
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> www.pocketsoap.com
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------
            ---
            > >-----------
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
            > >implementations to discuss
            > >> >>> >> >> >>implementation and interoperability issues. Please
            > >stay on-topic.
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>-----------------------------------------------------
            ---
            > >---------
            > >> >>> >> >> >>This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
            > >implementations to discuss implementation and
            > >> >>int
            > >> >>> >eroperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > >> >>> >> >> >>soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >> >>> >> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------
            ---
            > >--------
            > >> >>> >> >> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
            > >implementations to discuss implementation and i
            > >> >>nte
            > >> >>> >roperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > >> >>> >> >> >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >> >>> >> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------
            ---
            > >-------
            > >> >>> >> >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
            > >implementations to discuss implementation and in
            > >> >>ter
            > >> >>> >operability issues. Please stay on-topic.
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > >> >>> >> >> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >>
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >---------------------------------------------------------
            ---
            > >-----
            > >> >>> >> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
            implementations
            > >to discuss implementation and inte
            > >> >>rop
            > >> >>> >erability issues. Please stay on-topic.
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > >> >>> >> >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >> >>> >> >
            > >> >>> >>
            > >> >>> >>
            > >> >>> >>
            > >> >>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
            ---
            > >----
            > >> >>> >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
            implementations
            > >to discuss implementation and inter
            > >> >>ope
            > >> >>> >rability issues. Please stay on-topic.
            > >> >>> >>
            > >> >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > >> >>> >> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
            > >> >>> >>
            > >> >>> >>
            > >> >>> >>
            > >> >>> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >> >>> >>
            > >> >>> >
            > >> >>> >
            > >> >>> >
            > >> >>> >------------------------------------------------------------
            ---
          • Simon Fell
            yes, there s a non SOAP-RP version available as well, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/5756 Cheers Simon
            Message 5 of 28 , Nov 3, 2001
              yes, there's a non SOAP-RP version available as well, see
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/5756

              Cheers
              Simon

              On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 03:09:35 -0000, in soap you wrote:

              >Thanks, Simon! I really hoped the final targets won't need to when
              >use a request/response protocal. So that they can concentrate on
              >building services, and aren't worry about routing at all. A logging
              >intermediary based on SOAP-RP would fail in most of the situations,
              >huh?
              >
              >Cheers,
              >
              >Yunhao
              >
              >
              >
              >--- In soapbuilders@y..., Simon Fell <soap@z...> wrote:
              >> The problem is that the response from the final destination doesn't
              >> have a SOAP-RP header in it. The final destination also has to
              >support
              >> SOAP-RP.
              >>
              >> Cheers
              >> Simon
              >>
              >> On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 01:55:58 -0000, in soap you wrote:
              >>
              >> >Hi Simon,
              >> >
              >> >When I sent the following message to log-rp.ashx:
              >> >
              >> >
              >> ><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
              >> ><SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns:SOAP-
              >> >ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
              >> >xmlns:tns="http://www.xmethods.net/sd/TemperatureService.wsdl"
              >> >xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"
              >> >xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/"
              >> >xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:SOAP-
              >> >ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" SOAP-
              >>
              >>ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"><SOAP-
              >> >ENV:Header><mm:path xmlns:mm="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/rp/" SOAP-
              >> >ENV:actor="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/actor/next" SOAP-
              >>
              >>ENV:mustUnderstand="1"><mm:action></mm:action><mm:to>http://services.
              >x
              >> >methods.net:80/soap/servlet/rpcrouter</mm:to><mm:id>5efd520d-d0c4-
              >> >11d5-8fe6-
              >> >00105a24f6d1</mm:id><mm:fwd><mm:via>http://63.202.173.234:81/log-
              >>
              >>rp.ashx</mm:via></mm:fwd><mm:rev><mm:via/></mm:rev></mm:path></SOAP-
              >> >ENV:Header> <SOAP-ENV:Body><mns:getTemp xmlns:mns="urn:xmethods-
              >> >Temperature"><zipcode
              >> >xsi:type="xsd:string">20876</zipcode></mns:getTemp></SOAP-
              >ENV:Body>
              >> ></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
              >> >
              >> >I got a fault message back,
              >> >
              >> ><sp:Envelope
              >>
              >>xmlns:sp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"><sp:Body><sp:Fau
              >l
              >> >t><faultcode>sp:Client</faultcode><faultstring>Value null was
              >found
              >> >where an instance of an object was
              >>
              >>required.</faultstring><faultactor>http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/
              >2
              >> >001/01/</faultactor><detail><lg:StackTrace
              >> >xmlns:lg="http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/"> at
              >> >logiRP.InboundRPProcessing(XmlNode rpNode) in
              >C:\soap\dotnetsoap\log-
              >> >rp.ashx:line 149
              >> >
              >> > at logiRP.ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) in
              >> >C:\soap\dotnetsoap\log-rp.ashx:line
              >> >60</lg:StackTrace></detail></sp:Fault></sp:Body></sp:Envelope>
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >Any idea what's wong in the request?
              >> >
              >> >Thanks!
              >> >
              >> >Yunhao
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >--- In soapbuilders@y..., Simon Fell <soap@z...> wrote:
              >> >> Bob, you're correct [of course !], I've updated my endpoint
              >> >> accordingly.
              >> >>
              >> >> Cheers
              >> >> Simon
              >> >> www.pocketsoap.com
              >> >>
              >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:07:39 -0800, in soap you wrote:
              >> >>
              >> >> >Hi Bob,
              >> >> >
              >> >> >I'll have to read the spec again, i thought the via elements
              >were
              >> >for
              >> >> >intermediaries, therefore the server shouldn't enter one in the
              >> >> >reverse path.
              >> >> >
              >> >> >Cheers
              >> >> >Simon
              >> >> >
              >> >> >On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:35:27 -0700, in soap you wrote:
              >> >> >
              >> >> >>Hi Simon,
              >> >> >>
              >> >> >>I notice that your RP endpoint doesn't make an entry in
              >the "rev"
              >> >> >>reverse path element it includes in the response message
              >> >(no "via"
              >> >> >>child element is present). Is this intentional? Although the
              >> >reverse
              >> >> >>path element is optional, I believe that if it *is* present,
              >each
              >> >node
              >> >> >>is expected to insert a "via" element into it, including the
              >> >sender.
              >> >> >>
              >> >> >>What's happening is that if the WM intermediaries see a "rev"
              >> >> >>element in the response, they insert a "via" element into it.
              >But
              >> >the
              >> >> >>result is an incomplete reverse path, since it lacks the
              >> >endpoint's
              >> >> >>URL. This might be worse than having no reverse path at all.
              >> >> >>
              >> >> >>What do you think?
              >> >> >>
              >> >> >>RC
              >> >> >>
              >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> Cool :)
              >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> There's a SOAP-RP version of the logging intermediary at
              >> >> >>> http://63.202.173.234:81/log-rp.ashx
              >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> Cheers
              >> >> >>> Simon
              >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:31:20 -0700, in soap you wrote:
              >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >Hi Simon,
              >> >> >>> >
              >> >> >>> >Success! I've been able to route a request through one or
              >both
              >> >of
              >> >> >>> >the 2 WM nodes to your endpoint. Does your intermediary
              >node
              >> >> >>> >support RP yet?
              >> >> >>> >
              >> >> >>> >Thanks,
              >> >> >>> >
              >> >> >>> >RC
              >> >> >>> >
              >> >> >>> >> Good point, I've updated it to set both the actor and
              >> >mustUnderstand
              >> >> >>> >> in the response.
              >> >> >>> >>
              >> >> >>> >> Cheers
              >> >> >>> >> Simon
              >> >> >>> >>
              >> >> >>> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:16:27 -0700, in soap you wrote:
              >> >> >>> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >Hi Simon,
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >Ok, when trying to use the WM intermediary, there's a
              >> >problem... it's not happy because the 4s4c SOAP-RP endpoint isn't
              >> >placing an "actor" attribute on the header entry it places in the
              >> >*response* message, and the WM intermediary expects to
              >> >find "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/actor/next"
              >> >> >>at
              >> >> >>> >a minimum. You might have noticed that the WM endpoint does
              >> >this with SOAP-RP headers in the response. With none specified at
              >> >all, and it being aware that it's not the "default actor", the
              >> >intermediary thinks that it is not the target of the header entry.
              >> >It's always seemed to me that headers
              >> >> >>in
              >> >> >>> >response messages need to specify their target, no
              >differently
              >> >than those in request messages, for all the same reasons. If there
              >> >are multiple intermediaries in the path, how would header entries
              >in
              >> >the response message get processed correctly without targeting
              >them
              >> >at the proper actor (which
              >> >> >>> >might be associated with only one of possibly many nodes in
              >> >the path)? Of course a routing header is most
              >> >> >>> >> >conveniently handled by using actor "next", for obvious
              >> >reasons. This issue doesn't even exist until you start using
              >> >intermediaries.
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >What do you think??
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >Anyway, looking at the wire dumps, everything is fine,
              >> >other than this.
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >RC
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> Assuming you can get a connection, there's a SOAP-RP
              >> >enabled version
              >> >> >>> >> >> of the interop endpoint running at
              >> >> >>> >> >> http://63.202.173.234:81/ilab-rp.ashx
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> All the SOAP-RP error handling isn't in place yet, but
              >> >the basics
              >> >> >>> >> >> should work fine.
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> Cheers
              >> >> >>> >> >> Simon
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:04:21 -0800, in soap you wrote:
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >I have a SOAP-RP enabled version of the logger
              >running
              >> >at
              >> >> >>> >> >> >http://63.202.173.234:81/log-rp.ashx which i've been
              >> >testing in
              >> >> >>> >> >> >conjunction with the White Mesa SOAP-RP enabled
              >endpoint.
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> >I'll try and get a SOAP-RP enabled endpoint up and
              >> >running as well.
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> >Cheers
              >> >> >>> >> >> >Simon
              >> >> >>> >> >> >www.pocketsoap.com
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> >On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 07:16:53 -0700, in soap you wrote:
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>Hi Simon,
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>Looks good, I'll give it a shot when I get a chance.
              >A
              >> >similar thing is
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>available at the White Mesa site [1]. This is
              >supported
              >> >by the normal
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>interop endpoint at
              >> >http://www.whitemesa.net/interop/std.
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>If you could be convinced to get a SOAP-RP endpoint
              >> >running, interop testing
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>using multiple hop routing would be possible. A SOAP-
              >RP
              >> >endpoint is
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>available at WM also [2], with schema and WSDL
              >> >definitions for the test
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>service also available. Unfortunately, no other
              >nodes
              >> >exist at the moment
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>for proper testing.
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>You may be right about toolkits in general. The WM
              >> >server, because of the
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>circumstances of its origin, had to have
              >intermediary
              >> >support baked in early
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>for gateway duties.
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>I hope that more intermediary nodes can be brought
              >up
              >> >for interop testing in
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>the near future. This is a very interesting area.
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>Thanks,
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>RC
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>[1]
              >> >http://www.whitemesa.net/std/relay/interop_relay_index.htm
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>[2] http://www.whitemesa.com/wmsoapsvc_rp.htm
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> As an experiment in building SOAP intermediaries,
              >i
              >> >put together a
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> simple intermediary that does request/response
              >> >logging, and a log
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> viewer.
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> There's a request Header that indicates the next
              >hop
              >> >that the request
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> should be sent to [this should probably be moved
              >to
              >> >SOAP-RP], and the
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> response contains a header with the link to the
              >> >viewer page for that
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> capture.
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Here's an example request/response with the
              >headers
              >> >populated
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <S:Envelope
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >S:encodingStyle='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/'
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:S='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/'
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:E='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/'
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >xmlns:a='http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/'
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:b='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance'
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:c='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:d='http://soapinterop.org/'>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <S:Header>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <a:Log
              >> >S:actor='http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/'>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <a:NextHop>http://mayhem/ilab/soap.asp</a:NextHop>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> </a:Log>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> </S:Header>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <S:Body><d:echoString>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <inputString b:type='c:string'>Hello World !
              >> ></inputString>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> </d:echoString>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> </S:Body></S:Envelope>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <SOAP-ENV:Envelope
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:SOAP-
              >> >ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:SOAP-
              >> >ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-
              >instance"
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> SOAP-
              >> >ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/">
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <sp:Header
              >> >xmlns:sp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <lg:logResults
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >>
              >>>>xmlns:lg="http://schemas.pocketsoap.com/log/2001/01/">http://63.202
              >.
              >> >173.234:
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>81/logViewer.aspx?id=9550da03-bf88-425a-87bd-
              >> >286e97fba9eb</lg:logResults>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> </sp:Header>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <SOAP-ENV:Body>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <m:echoStringResponse
              >> >xmlns:m="http://soapinterop.org/">
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <outputString xsi:type="xsd:string">Hello World !
              >> ></outputString>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> </m:echoStringResponse>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> </SOAP-ENV:Body></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I'm coming to the conclusion that your average
              >soap
              >> >client/server
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> toolkit doesn't make a good starting point for
              >> >building
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> intermediaries, what do you think ?
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The service is up and running at
              >> >http://63.202.173.234:81/log.ashx if
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> anyone wants to try it out.
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Cheers
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Simon
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> www.pocketsoap.com
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------
              >---
              >> >-----------
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
              >> >implementations to discuss
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>implementation and interoperability issues. Please
              >> >stay on-topic.
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              >> >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>-----------------------------------------------------
              >---
              >> >---------
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
              >> >implementations to discuss implementation and
              >> >> >>int
              >> >> >>> >eroperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              >> >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >> >> >>> >> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------
              >---
              >> >--------
              >> >> >>> >> >> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
              >> >implementations to discuss implementation and i
              >> >> >>nte
              >> >> >>> >roperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              >> >> >>> >> >> >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              >> >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >> >> >>> >> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------
              >---
              >> >-------
              >> >> >>> >> >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
              >> >implementations to discuss implementation and in
              >> >> >>ter
              >> >> >>> >operability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              >> >> >>> >> >> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              >> >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >>
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >---------------------------------------------------------
              >---
              >> >-----
              >> >> >>> >> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
              >implementations
              >> >to discuss implementation and inte
              >> >> >>rop
              >> >> >>> >erability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              >> >> >>> >> >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              >> >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >> >> >>> >> >
              >> >> >>> >>
              >> >> >>> >>
              >> >> >>> >>
              >> >> >>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
              >---
              >> >----
              >> >> >>> >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
              >implementations
              >> >to discuss implementation and inter
              >> >> >>ope
              >> >> >>> >rability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              >> >> >>> >>
              >> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              >> >> >>> >> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
              >> >> >>> >>
              >> >> >>> >>
              >> >> >>> >>
              >> >> >>> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              >> >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >> >> >>> >>
              >> >> >>> >
              >> >> >>> >
              >> >> >>> >
              >> >> >>> >------------------------------------------------------------
              >---
              >
              >
              >
              >-----------------------------------------------------------------
              >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              >
              >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/
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.