cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Glynn, Eoghan" <eoghan.gl...@iona.com>
Subject RE: Identification of Partial Responses
Date Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:11:06 GMT

OK, back to the drawing board on this one :(

A quick google on this question suggests that, notwithstanding some
confusion, an empty SOAP body is actually kosher in certain
circumstances ... see for example [1].

So off the top of my head, I think we'd have to do something like the
following to make the partial/full response distinction more
bullet-proof:

1. Stop sending the wsa:RelatesTo in the partial response (this is
potentially misleading in any case)
2. Set something like a Message.IS_RESPONSE property to false in the
WS-A layer if the wsa:RelatesTo header is not present
3. Replace the ClientImpl.isPartialResponse() logic with
Boolean.FALSE.equals(inMessage.get(Message.IS_RESPONSE))

Checking via Boolean.FALSE.equals() would ensure that the ClientImpl
logic would be valid even if WS-A layer was absent (in which case the
IS_RESPONSE property would be null, but we can assume that a partial
response would never be received, as this may only occur if WS-A headers
were present in the corresponding request).

Cheers,
Eoghan

[1]
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbossws-issues/2006-October/000022.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Smyth [mailto:andrea.smyth@iona.com] 
> Sent: 09 January 2007 09:58
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Identification of Partial Responses
> 
> Further to the dicussions on the 
> "JaxwsInterceptorRemoverInterceptor and RM" subject on the 
> different ways to identify a partial response I came accross 
> an example of application messages with empty soap bodies. 
> This is in the 
> org.apache.cxf.systest.basicDOCBare.DOCBareClientServerTest
> system test, where the response to the putLastTradedPrice 
> invocation is a soap message with an empty body.
> Addressing is not involved.
> First off, is the empty ssoap body OK and to be expected?
> Secondly, if it is, what should I expect if this 
> client-server setup uses addressing and non-anonymous 
> ReplyTo? It seems we can distinguish the partial response 
> from the real response not by checking for an empty body 
> (regardless if this results in empty of no list content in the
> message) but need to look also at the addressing headers ...
> Any ideas?
> 
> Andrea.
> 

Mime
View raw message