On 01/21/2011 10:57 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > On Thursday 20 January 2011 2:49:53 am Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > > .................. > >> The WS-RM code does implement duplicate message checks if AtMostOnce is >> specified (in org.apache.cxf.ws.rm.DestinationSequence), in which case >> it throws an exception that goes all the way up the call stack to >> PhaseInterceptorChain. I'd think that would result in a Fault response >> to the client when using two-way calls, though - so it really needs to >> be handled using the above type of approach instead, right? >> > > Isn't that correct though? Looking at the RM 1.1 spec section 3.2.2 on > duplicate elimination, it says: > ------------------------------ > When the Response RM-Reply Pattern is requested with Duplicate Elimination > for > a Reliable Message, the Receiving RMP cannot deliver that message to the > Consumer again (because it is a duplicate of a previously delivered message), > and a Consumer response payload is expected, the response of the SOAP MEP > instance MUST contain one (but not both) of the following: > • a copy of the original response payload returned for that Message (in the > SOAP Body) in addition to the Acknowledgment Indication (in the SOAP Header) > > or > > • a SOAP server Fault (in the SOAP Body) in addition to the Acknowledgment > Indication (in the SOAP Header). The Sending RMP and Producer expect either a > complete response or a SOAP Fault when using the Response RM-Reply Pattern; > these two allowed behaviors satisfy that expectation. > ---------------------------------- > > Since we don't save the response to the original request, the second option > of > the fault is, I think, the only option. Right? (this could be a 1.1 > change though. I don't have the 1.0 spec handy right now0 >
It looks like you're getting that from the WS-Reliability 1.1 spec, rather than WS-RM 1.1 (http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702/wsrm-1.1-spec-os-01-e1.html). WS-RM doesn't appear to say anything about responses to duplicates. My own feeling is that responses should be cached and resent in response to duplicate request messages - otherwise, WS-RM is pretty much useless for request-response flows - but that does add potentially a lot of overhead since all responses would need to be held until the sequence was closed. :-( Let me see what Metro does in this case, and also check with one of the WS-RM people to see why they didn't address it in the spec. It seems like it would have made sense to include response acknowledgments to handle this case. - Dennis
