See also http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html#Encodings_and_the_use_Attribute
On 9/5/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet
