axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Doug Davis" <...@us.ibm.com>
Subject RE: SOAPAction
Date Wed, 07 Feb 2001 17:07:53 GMT
Conceptually, I agree, but in practice how do you even know which pipeline
to
invoke w/o having the target service?  I suppose that we could invoke the
global WSDD and at some point in it's pipeline we'll determine the target
service, but does that mean that the global WSDD needs to know how to
handle all types of input - ie. encrypted, ebXML, SOAP....  and does that
mean
that the global wsdd has the notion of dynamically determining the 'next'
guy in the chain, and if we allow that for determining services (or
determining
the chain to invoke) how long will it be before people will want to do it
for
non-service-determining things - and then we're talking (shhh) workflow.
8-)
-Dug


Glen Daniels <gdaniels@allaire.com> on 02/07/2001 11:52:53 AM

Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org

To:   "'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'" <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
cc:
Subject:  RE: SOAPAction



I disagree re: saying sayonara to lazy parsing.

Figuring out which service to dispatch to can be done at ANY stage in the
pipeline.  For isntance, the email address which receives a SOAP message
may
map to only a single service.  The same holds true for an HTTP URL, or
dispatch might be completely accomplished by a "service-id=" query-string
parameter.

SOAPAction is simply one transport-specific way that dispatch to the target
service MIGHT be accomplished.  Depending on the particular endpoint, you
may or may not be able to uniquely identify a service/chain before you
parse.  So if you want lazy parsing, you make sure there's some way to do
it.

--Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 10:24 AM
> To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SOAPAction
>
>
> we may have to kiss pulled parsing goodbye, as SOAPAction header is
> optional (it is required, but the content may not be
> reliable).  Further
> for requests coming in from other transports (SMTP) we cannot
> rely on this
> as a mechanism to lookup which type of service is being invoked.
>
> sgg
>
> ++++++++
> Steve Graham
> sggraham@us.ibm.com
> (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> <<Pithecanthropus Erectus>>
> Emerging Internet Technologies
> ++++++++
>
>
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS on 02/07/2001 09:26:56 AM
>
> Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org
>
> To:   axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> cc:
> Subject:  Re: SOAPAction
>
>
>
> I was looking at the spec and it talks about how the SOAPAction
> header can be used for HTTP to indicate intent of the message.
> Well, I was assuming that the SOAPAction should (not "must" but
> "should") match the requested URI of the service for the simple
> reason that if it doesn't match then what good is it?  If it doesn't
> match then we're basic saying the user can lie about their intent.
> Also, w/o having the target URI in the SOAPAction then we can
> kiss laying parsing goodbye.  But like I mentioned in the code
> I wasn't sure about it so I just wrote something to get us going.
> -Dug
>
> Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com> on 02/07/2001 09:05:56 AM
>
> Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org
>
> To:   axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> cc:
> Subject:  SOAPAction
>
>
>
>  Hello. 8-)
>  During the cleanup I saw Dug has some IMHO wrong assumptions about
> SOAPAction.
>  Dug, please explain how you use the Action string in the code, so I
> can continue the cleanup not screwing your code badly. 8-)
>  I'm writing this to the list, so that we all can have a discussion
> about the SOAPAction header and its use - proposals, anyone? 8-)
>  Thanks
>
>                             Jacek Kopecky
>                                Idoox
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Mime
View raw message