Hi Iwasa,
iwasa wrote:
Sunil,
I found one other question - which is potentially
new issue.
Before diving into new question,
let me draw some quick example here
to make sure what you said:
1.Normal Ack Message without piggybacking
<soap:envelope>
<soap:header>
<rm:Response>
<rm:RefToMessageIds>
<SequenceNumRange/>
</rm:RefToMessageIds>
</rm:Response>
</soap:header>
<soap:body/>
The above example should also have a MessageHeader Header with
MessageId with no SeqNum. , ExpiryTime and ReplyPattern (will
be the same
value as that of the Request - see REL 99).
2.Fault Message with SOAP1.1
<soap:envelope>
<soap:header>
<rm:Fault>xxxx Fault</rm:Fault>
</soap:header>
<soap:body/>
Even Fault will have a MessageHeader/. Infact, a RM Fault message
will have
a MessageHeader, Response (bcoz we need to RefToMessageId) and
a
SOAP Body with SOAP Fault contents.
Thinking about it, I feel that RM Response Header should have
an attribute
called messageType to easily distinguish Ack. message with Fault
message
just as we had it in our version we submitted to this TC. Let
me send a
separate mail raising this issue.
What I wanted to make sure were:
1. Ack message without piggybacking
do not include <rm:Header> element.
2. Fault message without piggybacking
do not include <rm:Header> element.
And it seems to be correct with Sunil's reply.
No, that's not true. Every RM message should have the MessageHeader.
I did mention this clearly in my previous mail . See below too:
" MessageHeader has to
exist for every RM message"
The new question is how we can notify
MessageId in the Fault Message.
I believe Fault message have to include
RefToMessageId for the fault.
Example 2 above can't identify the original
message that caused the fault.
It gets the RefToMessageId from the Response element,
So what's missing is the easy to figure out whether it's
an Ack. or Fault message given the Response element alone.
So in the spec. we submitted to the TC, we had a message-type
element. We need to reintroduce it.
There are three ways to fix this issue:
The first one is Fault message also include Response
element(Example 3 below).
I was always under the above assumption based on our
initial spec.
The second one is
to change location of Fault element as child element
of Response element and allow it appears for Fault
message only.
The problem with the above approach will be that for SOAP 1.2
we won't be needing the Fault Header and hence it will be
very confusing.
The third one is
to add new Code element and RefToMessageId
element under Fault element(Example 5 below).
And I prefer the last one, since the first two may be
confusing. How do you think?
This has the same drawback as the above one for SOAP 1.2.
We need to isolate Fault with Response so that we can keep
the same syntax for Response in both SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 case.
3.Candidate Fault Message with SOAP1.1 (1)
<soap:envelope>
<soap:header>
<rm:Response>
<rm:RefToMessageIds>
<SequenceNumRange/>
</rm:RefToMessageIds>
</rm:Response>
<rm:Fault>xxxx Fault</rm:Fault>
</soap:header>
<soap:body/>
The above is my preferred with an additional messageType attribute.
See my next mail following this one.
4.Candidate Fault Message with SOAP1.1 (2)
<soap:envelope>
<soap:header>
<rm:Response>
<rm:Fault>xxxx
Fault</rm:Fault>
<rm:RefToMessageIds>
<SequenceNumRange/>
</rm:RefToMessageIds>
</rm:Response>
<rm:Fault>xxxx Fault</rm:Fault>
</soap:header>
<soap:body/>
5.Candidate Fault Message with SOAP1.1 (3)
<soap:envelope>
<soap:header>
<rm:Fault>
<rm:Code>xxxx Fault</rm:Code>
<rm:RefToMessageIds>
<SequenceNumRange/>
</rm:RefToMessageIds>
</rm:Fault>
</soap:header>
<soap:body/>
If I misunderstood or I am missing something,
I guess you have identified a bug/shortcoming :-)
please let me know.
Good catch!
Thanks,
Iwasa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sunil Kunisetty" <>
To: "iwasa" <>
Cc: "wsrm" <>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Ack message and Fault message
>
> Iwasa,
>
> Ack. is ALWAYS included in the Response element and MessageHeader
> has to exist for every RM message.
This is the case even for
piggybacking.
> The difference between a normal ack. and piggybacked ack. is
that, in the
> latter case the (ack|fault) response is sent along with another
requeust,
> which means it will have a MessageHeader, Request, and Response
element.
> A normal ack. just has a MessageHeader and Response
>
> The same applies for Faults (the difference being instead of
using
Response
> element, we will be usiing the Fault element) also except that
for a SOAP
1.2
> RM msg, we never use the Fault element.
>
> HTH,
> -Sunil
>
> iwasa wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I'm working on the examples. And I think I need to make
> > sure that:
> > 1) The Acknowledgment message is including
> > Response element, but not MessageHeader
element
> > except piggybacking. Is this correct?
> > 2) The Fault message is including Fault element,
> > but not MessageHeader element exept
piggybacking.
> > Is this also correct?
> >
> > There is no statement for 2) above in the spec.
> >
> > If there is no argument, I will include some text to resolve
> > this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Iwasa
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
