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

Re: Logging Intermediary

Expand Messages
  • yzhang@motherbot.com
    Hi Simon, When I sent the following message to log-rp.ashx:
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 28 , Nov 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 28 , Nov 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 28 , Nov 3, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            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.