SwA uses "cid"  references with "Href" attributes in elements to refer
to mime parts. MTOM/XOP does the same... For an SwA only endpoint
<xop:include.../> element is just an element with a "href" attribute
which contains an "cid" reference to a mime part..
So a SwA endpoint will treat it as a normal SwA message....

yes.. I understand... There can be much several complication when
doing this..  Like the "type" parameter you mentioned. But I don't
think any SwA endpoint is programmed to reject a message with that
"type" parameter.... Since this "application/xop+xml" was introduced
long after the SwA implementations came to existance..... Lets hope
for the Best...

Anyway MTOM/XOP is the future for sending binary Attachments with SOAP...

> 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. 

People have to wait for some time till Axis2 gets it's ws-policy
implementation up, to expect Axis2 to be this Smart ;-)

~Thilina

>   
> 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 


-- 
"May the SourcE be with u" 
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/thilina

Reply via email to