Just to clarify: WS-I Attachment Profile 1.0 describes how to send attachments with SOAP 1.1 messages based on the SOAP with Attachments (SwA) specification using MIME packaging. WS-I endorsed SwA because it is more broadly implemented than any other attachment mechanism. Keep in mind that SwA is not a "standard". It has not been ratified by a standards group. The specification also does not define a WSDL extension, therefore there was no specification for how to define attachments in WSDL until WS-I defined the profile. Adoption of the WS-I Attachments profile has been somewhat slow.
Unfortunately, Microsoft does not and will not support SwA, therefore Microsoft does not and will not support the WS-I Attachment Profile 1.0. (SwA has some inherent security vulnerabilities, so I understand Microsoft's position on this point.) Microsoft WSE 2.0 supports attachments in SOAP 1.1 using WS-Attachments and DIME packaging. (WS-attachments is also not a "standard".) WSE 3.0 supports SOAP 1.1 attachments using WS-Attachments/DIME and SOAP 1.2 attachments using MTOM/MIME. Unlike SwA and WS-Attachments, MTOM is a standard -- it is a W3C Recommendation. But MTOM is specified to work with SOAP 1.2. That kinda leaves us at an impasse for SOAP 1.1 attachments. As I said at the beginning of this thread, my recommendation is "don't use attachments". Anne On 7/26/05, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tony Opatha wrote: > > I agree SOAP with (MIME) Attachment is probably more interoperable > > than DIME. > > > > However, keep in mind that WS-I BP 1.1 has a SOAP Attachment Profile 1.0 > > finalized since last year. > > > > I believe currently WS-BP 1.1 is being supported by some commercial > > SOAP vendors with SOAP Attachment Profile 1.0. > > > > However, AXIS does not support WS-BP 1.1 nor does it support SOAP > > Attachment Profile; this support will be available in AXIS 2.0. > > > > On the other hand, in gSOAP there seem to be some support for WS-BP 1.1. > > > > I think it was a mistake for AXIS 1.2 not to have support for WS BP 1.1. > > > > AXIS 2 may be months (or who knows may be more than a year) from > > being released as final release, and having such support AXIS 1.x > > would have > > been a great opportunity towards interoperable web services. > > > > > > Tony, > > Remember that Axis is a community project. You are free to add missing > features, and contribute them back. without such contributions, yes, > Axis will lack things you need. > > On an unrelated note, I WS BP1.1 is not a cure for interop problems. It > avoided taking any stance on which subset of XSD to use, and by > mandating how to do attachments (MTOM) that was not in any > implementation, rendered it impossible for full compliance to be possible. > > -stefve >
