See http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html#SOAP_encodingStyle_Attribute
it seems pretty clear for me, but maybe i misread it. On 9/5/06, Maciej Szefler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 > >> > >> > > > > > >
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet
