On 1/8/07, Andrea Smyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Diephouse wrote: > I think that anything before unmarshalling should be pretty resilient > to any > type of message. But unmarshalling may be specific from service to > service. > So I'm cool with starting a new chain which starts after the > RmSoapInterceptor. > > Regarding the partial response check - I thought we decided we were > going to > set a property which signals that the message isn't destined for the > client. > This way we have a general mechanism for other WS-* specs as well. for > example: > > // determine whether the message was redispatched to RM or somewhere else > boolean redispatched = Boolean.TRUE.equals(message.get(REDISPATCHED)); > > Other possible property names might be REROUTED, INTERCEPTED, or > FORWARDED. Well that's not the case for now - and I am not sure where exactly this property should be set. It may require changes to several interceptors to make them aware of the possibly empty soap bodies and in such a case identify the message as a partial response.
Wouldn't it just be set in the RMSoapInterceptor? if (wsaAction.equals(createSequence)) message.put(REDISPATCHED, Boolean.TRUE )); In general I'd prefer if we could make it a policy for interceptors to
simply do NOTHING rather than deciding to take some default action (in the case of the BareInInterceptor: set the content of the in message to an empty list) when they do encounter 'abnormal' messages.
I'm not sure I understand. How are we supposed to know if there is an error then? - Dan -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
