Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of ajith.ranabahu@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.184.205 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
        b=VOsnkPZLJqgQWbQxkrs0EbjncIu8tzm6I1KJ8QQ9S5xLMcSXkUW0ijCU6fkehOsfMIPKM415n/HNfXnDJJXDcO+OPTknGAyB34nw6AsSZG0pv6nxnIJ4PbMH+iJjp6lUQrvcgWEXhMC4HgVWExctKqKFd3BOGwuCd6GeaAlsA4g=
Message-ID: <f43ea579050303033947313456@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:39:51 +0600
From: Ajith Ranabahu <ajith.ranabahu@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Ajith Ranabahu <ajith.ranabahu@gmail.com>
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org, chinthaka@opensource.lk
Subject: Re: [Axis2] SOAP 1.1 and/or 1.2
In-Reply-To: <200503030556.j235uUDm072235@squid.cmb.ac.lk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <200503030556.j235uUDm072235@squid.cmb.ac.lk>

Hi,
I have not looked into the SOAP specs in detail but may I suggest a
solution. I'm sure SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 has similar properties and
behaviors even though they are named diffrently. So my guess is we can
have a common model (one of our own) that has both the features and
have two implementations of that set of interfaces for SOAP 1.1 and
1.2 (or whatever comes later even :))
The internal engine works with our model and wouldn't see the diff.=20

thoughts ?


On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:49:59 +0600, Eran Chinthaka
<chinthaka@opensource.lk> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> =20
>=20
> We implemented a SOAP layer on top of OM using the SOAPBuilder. But it wa=
s
> in accordance with SOAP 1.1. But now I think its time to support SOAP 1.2=
 as
> well. There we have a problem as some of the things are bit different in =
1.2
> compared to 1.1. (see here
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part0-20030624/#L4697)
>=20
> =20
>=20
> For example; SOAP fault element has many difference between these two.=20
>=20
> And there are some name changes as well. For example actor has changed to
> role. So I have a problem which method to use. Is it getRole() or getActo=
r()
> I should use ? or put both ?=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> When u think about handlers accessing the SOAP message using OM, one migh=
t
> write there code to comply with SOAP 1.1 and whilst other with SOAP 1.2.=
=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> If you put a method like getRole, well that can be used to return actor f=
or
> SOAP 1.1. But is it ok ?
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Plus, there are some specific information available in SOAP faults. In 1.=
2
> Code and Reason are mandatory and the element hierarchy there is differen=
t
> to (of more informative) than SOAP 1.1.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> So how do we support both =E2=80=A6.. ??
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Option 1 : Having two SOAP builders for SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2. But then
> handler writers will have to have a big if.. else ..
>=20
> Option 2 : Support SOAP 1.2 only and if there is something missing, user
> (handler writer or any other accessing SOAP), must take care of that.
>=20
> Option 3 : =E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6.. ??
>=20
> =20
>=20
> I'd like to see a very convenient API for user to manipulate the SOAP
> message using OM.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Comments/ Thoughts ..
>=20
> =20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Eran Chinthaka
>=20
> =20


--=20
Ajith Ranabahu