cxf-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jesse Pangburn (Commented) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CXF-3916) partial response problem with SOAP 1.1 use of WS-Addressing
Date Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:03:46 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3916?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13212804#comment-13212804
] 

Jesse Pangburn commented on CXF-3916:
-------------------------------------

Hi Dan,
I don't think that's true.  I looked up the spec before going down this path.  The W3C spec
is at http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-core/

Here's the part about relatesTo:
/wsa:RelatesTo
This OPTIONAL (repeating) element information item contributes one abstract [relationship]
property value, in the form of an (IRI, IRI) pair. The content of this element (of type xs:anyURI)
conveys the [message id] of the related message.

The spec says nothing about it being required, in fact it says in caps "OPTIONAL".

Aki is probably looking at the original W3C submission, not the final spec.  The submission
is available here: http://www.w3.org/Submission/ws-addressing/

It's different.  It says:
/wsa:RelatesTo
This OPTIONAL (repeating) element information item contributes one abstract [relationship]
property value, in the form of a (URI, QName) pair. The [children] property of this element
(which is of type xs:anyURI) conveys the [message id] of the related message. This element
MUST be present if the message is a reply.

This is probably where he got the idea that it was required, since it is required in the submission
version.  Apparently that was lifted in the final version.

Thanks,
Jesse


                
> partial response problem with SOAP 1.1 use of WS-Addressing
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CXF-3916
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3916
>             Project: CXF
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: JAX-WS Runtime
>    Affects Versions: 2.4.2
>            Reporter: Jesse Pangburn
>            Assignee: Daniel Kulp
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: client, dispatch, soap11, ws-addressing
>             Fix For: 2.3.10, 2.4.7, 2.5.3
>
>
> Description copied from email:
> I've read over this more and now see that the partial response stuff is definitely for
asynchronous processing, so the check with the WS-Addressing relatesTo header makes sense.
 The problem (I think) appears in your checkin revision 705446 for ClientImpl.java in this
section:
> {code}
>     synchronized (message.getExchange()) {
>         if (!isPartialResponse(message) && callback == null) {
>             message.getExchange().put(FINISHED, Boolean.TRUE);
>             message.getExchange().setInMessage(message);
>             message.getExchange().notifyAll();                   
>         }
>     }
> {code}
> You added the "&& callback == null" test, but I think what is needed is "|| callback
== null".  The idea here (again, as I'm reading it) is regarding these two cases:
> - it's an asynchronous response which is not a partial response
> - there is no callback, meaning it's a synchronous response
> In either of these cases you want to tell the exchange that it's finished and the message
you just got is the inbound message.  I think this worked for a long time without anyone running
into this because in the synchronous case (callback == null), the only way you get a partialResponse==true
is when WS-Addressing is engaged AND the server that you're connecting to doesn't return the
optional (but almost always used) relatesTo header.  Probably in the vast majority of cases
either WS-Addressing isn't used or the relatesTo header is present in a response.
> If you agree, I can create a defect and describe this.  Since the change is just &&
to ||, obviously it won't help to send you a patch file :-)
> Thanks,
> Jesse
> {code}
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Pangburn [mailto:Jesse.Pangburn@us.lawson.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 6:37 PM
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: partial response problem with SOAP 1.1 use of WS-Addressing and SOAPAction
> Hi,
> I invoked a SOAP 1.1 web service using CXF 2.4.2 DispatchImpl and that service immediately
returned the following soap header:
> 	<soap:Header>
> 		<wsa:MessageID>uuid:A12B3727-0B3D-11E1-983D-DFB5348FF699</wsa:MessageID>
> 		<wsa:Action>response</wsa:Action>
> 	</soap:Header>
> My client hung for 60 seconds until a timeout was reached, at which point the response
was available in the StaxSource.  Tracing the problem into the code revealed that it was waiting
because the message response it had received so far was deemed a "partial response" due to
the following code which always is called when WS-Addressing is enabled in MAPCodec.java:
>     private void markPartialResponse(SoapMessage message, AddressingProperties maps)
{
>         if (ContextUtils.isRequestor(message) && null != maps
>             && (null == maps.getRelatesTo() 
>                 || (null != maps.getRelatesTo()
>                     && Names.WSA_UNSPECIFIED_RELATIONSHIP.equals(maps.getRelatesTo().getValue()))))
{
>             message.put(Message.PARTIAL_RESPONSE_MESSAGE, Boolean.TRUE);
>         } 
>     }
> The problem, I think, is this condition "null == maps.getRelatesTo()".  This essentially
means that a WS-Addressing RelatesTo header is required to indicate that a message response
is complete- even on a synchronous request/response.  I think the source of this problem is
that the original WS-Addressing submission to W3C said that "This element MUST be present
if the message is a reply" in the description for the RelatesTo header (see http://www.w3.org/Submission/ws-addressing/#_Toc77464323).
 This language was struck from the final WS-Addressing 1.0 (see http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-core/#msgaddrpropsinfoset)
and means that RelatesTo is not required.
> While I think it was sloppy on the part of the service writer to not include the RelatesTo
header, it is OPTIONAL according to the spec.  So, especially in the case of a synchronous
request, I think this code is incorrect.  A CXF Dispatch client should not hang until timeout
is reached because an optional header is not included in the response.
> Unfortunately, I'm not really sure what the correct solution is here since I don't understand
the case for ever having a partial response message in a synchronous request/response.  Should
later code note that the request/response is synchronous and ignore this partial response
flag?  I assume the intention of this code is for asynchronous request/response so that the
immediate response on the request's socket connection is not treated as the asynchronous response
message.
> Any clues?
> Thanks,
> Jesse
> {code}

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message