I don't recall there being anything in WSI-BP that prohibits the usage of RPC-literal encoding, which results in multiple parts.
-mbs On 9/5/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh yes, good question! The point of mapping headers into message content is that many applications/frameworks do not give you easy access (or advise against accessing) message headers. Take, for example, BPEL processes. BPEL only gives you access to the abstract message definition. If headers are not defined and mapped into the content, you can't access them in a portable way. Maybe we could have a configuration attribute to normalize using WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0? That way, if there are no mapped headers and only one SOAP body element, then we could have basic support for WSDL 2.0. I'm very interested in getting full WSDL 1.1 support because that's what's mostly used and deployed today. The tooling and infrastructure ecosystem works great with WSDL 1.1 but still has ways to go with WSDL 2.0. With complete WSDL 1.1 support, we can make the most of ServiceMix today and gradually migrate to WSDL 2.0 when it becomes more widespread. alex Guillaume Nodet wrote: > I have attached an updated patch to the jira > http://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/ManageAttachments.jspa?id=24443 > > I still have some questions, now that I have a better understanding of > what > the > patch do. Mainly, I'm questionning the need to the wsdl 1.1 jbi wrapper. > If all services exposed and invoked by servicemix are ws-i basic profile > compliant, there is only one child in the soap body. Other parts that > may be included in the normalized message may come from soap headers. > So we are in the same case as for WSDL 2.0: only one element in the > soap body, and additioanl soap headers. However, for WSDL 2, soap > headers won't be mapped inside the xml content, but should be put > as properties on the message. So i'm not quite sure if headers should > be put inside the content for WSDL 1.1, as it will not be consistent. > I don't really see the point of the wrapper here. > > Thoughts ? > > On 8/31/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> > The binding model should only be built on top of the wsdl for the >> current >> > HttpEndpoint (either consumer or provider). This WSDL can be >> > explicitely set, or may be auto-generated using the target endpoint >> > WSDL. If the WSDL is provided, there is nothing to do, but if the >> WSDL >> > is generated, we have to: >> > * check if there is any existing binding infos (for example, if the >> > target >> > endpoint is a soap provider). In this case, we should use the >> > binding >> > informations >> > * else, we need a flag on the http endpoint to set the binding style >> > (rpc / doc). If the user need to provide a more detailed binding, >> > then he has to provide it in the wsdl. >> >> Ok, that clarifies it. >> >> >> > I'm trying to abstract the SoapBindingModel a bit more to be able to >> > easily handle a plain HTTP binding. >> > WSDL 2.0 bindings will require another reformat later i guess. >> >> Cool! I might be able to help with WSDL 2.0 as well. >> >> thanks, >> alex >> >> > >
