Yes, I agree that the wire format packaging of MTOM/XOP and
SwA are similar. I wasn't making a specific statement about Axis2 .9/Axis
1.2 attachment compatibility. I was in general suspect about an MTOM/XOP
implementation being able to interoperate with a SwA implementation. I
still do not understand how that is possible. Although, I read from
another thread that an MTOM message sent from Axis2 .9 was successfully
recognized as SwA on Axis 1.2. Again, I do not doubt that this is
possible... just do not understand how its accomplished unless there is
some negotiation going on between client and server. For instance, how can
a SwA server implementation (such as Axis 1.2) understand what to do with
XOP elements embedded in the MIME attachments unless a client like Axis2 .9 is
smart enough to realize that the server implementation doesn't support MTOM/XOP
and changes the wire format to SwA internally so that the SwA server
implementation can understand.
Thanks for any
additional insight.
From: Thilina Gunarathne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:20 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Axis2] Fwd: mtom vs. swa
What we meant by wire format is the packaging and arrangement of MIME
parts in the message.. SwA uses Content-ID's & Elements with "href"
attributes to identify MIME parts (Of course SwA supports Content-Location which
is not mentioned in MTOM/XOP)... MTOM does the same (With addition of XOP
element )...
I will not accept the statement about Axis 1.2 would fails unless
somebody proves it using Axis2... Couple of guys tested Axis2 .9 with
Axis1.2 and I heard them saying it worked......
~Thilina
On 7/27/05, Thilina
Gunarathne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Forwarding with Axis2 Prefix.--
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tony Dean < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jul 27, 2005 4:25 AM
Subject: mtom vs. swa
To: [email protected]
In the Axis2 documentation, I read a blurp about the definition of MTOM. I will include it here:
MTOM (SOAP Message Transmission Optimization Mechanism) < http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-soap12-mtom-20041116/> is a elegent solution for the above problems created by merging the above two techniques. MTOM is actually a "by reference" method. Wire format of a MTOM optimised message is same as the Soap with Attachments message , which also makes it backward compatible with SwA endpoints. Most notable feature of MTOM is the use of XOP:Include element which is declared in XML Binary Optimized Packaging (XOP) < http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-xop10-20041116/> specification to refer to the binary attachments of the message.With the use of this exclusive element the attached binary content logically become inline(by value) with the SOAP document even though actually it is attached seperately. This merges the two realms by making it possible to work only with one data model. With this the it becomes trivial to idetify the data by looking at XML making reliance on DTDs obsolute. With this
the technologies which works based XML component of the data can work with one data model.
I do not understand how you can say "Wire format of a MTOM optimised message is same as the Soap with Attachments message , which also makes it backward compatible with SwA endpoints." They are not the same as far as I can tell. An Indigo (WSE 3.0) client sending MTOM/XOP mime attachment content would cause an Axis 1.2 server to choke because it would not understand type="application/xop+xml". It would only be able to process SwA attachment content. Right? I'm I missing something here.
Thanks in advance for clearing this statement up.
-Confused.
Tony Dean
SAS Institute Inc.
919.531.6704
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SAS... The Power to Know
http://www.sas.com
"May the SourcE be with u"
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/thilina
--
"May the SourcE be with u"
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/thilina
