cxf-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jesse Pangburn (Reopened) (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Reopened] (CXF-3916) partial response problem with SOAP 1.1 use of WS-Addressing
Date Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:40:59 GMT


Jesse Pangburn reopened CXF-3916:

    Estimated Complexity: Moderate  (was: Novice)

The previous fix applied does not resolve the issue.  I've tried this using 2.5.2 and the
fix says it's resolved in 2.5.1, but still getting the same problem.

When the response message comes back like this without a relatesTo header is when the trouble

The original code was:
                if (!isPartialResponse(message) && callback == null) {
                    message.getExchange().put(FINISHED, Boolean.TRUE);

This was clearly wrong and so I think Dan changed the test to be:
                if (!isPartialResponse(message)) {

I believe the intention is that this test would do what it implies "if the response is not
a partial response then...".  If that were true this would have worked.  It's not true though,
because that test returns true in the case of a synchronous request with no relatesTo header-
saying that it's a partial response when it's not.  It's the complete response because it
was a synchronous response.

The fault here really lies in the code that sets the variable this test checks, but it's hard
to fix there.  This is why my original suggestion was to change the test to:
                if (!isPartialResponse(message) || callback == null) {

This fixes the synchronous case because callback is always null for a synchronous response.
 It does not harm the test for asynchronous case because callback is not null.

Changing 2.5.2 code to have this test instead works with that response which is missing the
relatesTo header.  The response is returned immediately to the client instead of timing out
waiting for the full response to come back (when there is no more forthcoming).

> partial response problem with SOAP 1.1 use of WS-Addressing
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: CXF-3916
>                 URL:
>             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: 2.4.5, 2.5.1
> 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 in this
> {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 [] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 6:37 PM
> To:
> 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
>     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
 This language was struck from the final WS-Addressing 1.0 (see
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
> Any clues?
> Thanks,
> Jesse
> {code}

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


View raw message