Dan Diephouse wrote:
OK, I'm guess that we're talking about different things then? So I'm not
sure I understand your question any more. I was saying that rather
depending
on this code:
private boolean isPartialResponse(Message in) {
return in.getContent(List.class) == null
&& getException(in.getExchange()) == null;
}
we should explicitly set a property REDISPATCHED. So the code in
ClientImpl.onMessage becomes:
if (!Boolean.TRUE.equals(message.get(REDISPATCHED)) {
message.getExchange().put(FINISHED, Boolean.TRUE);
message.getExchange().setInMessage(message);
message.getExchange().notifyAll();
}
And that gets around the problem of having to look for List content. All
that needs to be done is setting of the REDISPATCHED property when we
know
we have a message destined for the RM service (i.e. a CreateSequence).
That would work with non-anonymous replyTo's just fine. Whatever
component
redirects the message is responsible for setting the redispatched
parameter.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you're talking about though?
I am talking about processing a partial response to an APPLICATION
message - not messages destined for an RM endpoint (i.e. not
CreateSequence, CreateSequenceResponse, TerminateSequence etc. messages).
A partial response is sent by addressing so that RM interceptors, IF
they happen to be on the chain, can contribute/read Acknowlegement
headers . But addressing itself does not and should not have any
knowledge of whether RM is involved - it always sends a partial
response for twoways with non-anonymous ReplyTo, or oneways.
These partial responses really are essentially plain HTTP responses with
response code ACCEPTED, except that in some cases they need to be blown
up into real soap messages with headers but without a body. For that
reason the partial response is run through the interceptor chain so that
RM interceptors can contribute/interprete these headers.
It may turn out that RM interceptors actually have nothing to add to the
message (that depends on the acknowledgement policies in place), but the
point is that neither the transports nor the addressing interceptors can
know this up-front.
In such a case the partial response currently is an soap envelope with
an empty headers and body element - it was discussed before to not
marshal the envelope in such a case either. The partial response would
then in fact be a plain HTTP response.
I hope this is a bit clearer?
Andrea.
- Dan
On 1/8/07, Andrea Smyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Diephouse wrote:
> 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
> ));
No, this has nothing to do with RM - it would be a problem whenever we
use addressing with a non-anonymous ReplyTo. Granted, RM is the only
component tyhat actually has an interest in partial responses, but we'd
have to send them anyway as we'd need some form of http response.
>
> 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
>
