So there aren't any distinguishing characteristics of a partial response? Are partial responses documented anywhere?
Also, what other vendors are doing partial response? On 1/9/07, Andrea Smyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Diephouse wrote: > Quick question regarding #2 - Do other RM implementations include a > RelatesTo header in partial responses? > > Also, could we determine if its a partial response by checking to see > if the > Action is a SequenceAcknowledgement? No, partial responses do not have the action set. A message with action SequenceAcknowledgement indicates that the underlying message is a oneway, and was issued by an RMSource out-of-band (e.g. when a timer signals as opposed to when the client makes an invocation/the server sends a response). It also has an empty body (info is carried in the SequenceAcknowledgement header). When SequenceAcknowledgemens are piggybacked on an application message ( in case of anonymous AcksTo on partial responses, in case of acksTo== replyTo on full responses), the action is that of the underlying application message (null in case of partial responses). Andrea. > > - Dan > > On 1/9/07, Glynn, Eoghan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >> OK, back to the drawing board on this one :( >> >> A quick google on this question suggests that, notwithstanding some >> confusion, an empty SOAP body is actually kosher in certain >> circumstances ... see for example [1]. >> >> So off the top of my head, I think we'd have to do something like the >> following to make the partial/full response distinction more >> bullet-proof: >> >> 1. Stop sending the wsa:RelatesTo in the partial response (this is >> potentially misleading in any case) >> 2. Set something like a Message.IS_RESPONSE property to false in the >> WS-A layer if the wsa:RelatesTo header is not present >> 3. Replace the ClientImpl.isPartialResponse() logic with >> Boolean.FALSE.equals(inMessage.get(Message.IS_RESPONSE)) >> >> Checking via Boolean.FALSE.equals() would ensure that the ClientImpl >> logic would be valid even if WS-A layer was absent (in which case the >> IS_RESPONSE property would be null, but we can assume that a partial >> response would never be received, as this may only occur if WS-A headers >> were present in the corresponding request). >> >> Cheers, >> Eoghan >> >> [1] >> http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbossws-issues/2006-October/000022.html >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Andrea Smyth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: 09 January 2007 09:58 >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Identification of Partial Responses >> > >> > Further to the dicussions on the >> > "JaxwsInterceptorRemoverInterceptor and RM" subject on the >> > different ways to identify a partial response I came accross >> > an example of application messages with empty soap bodies. >> > This is in the >> > org.apache.cxf.systest.basicDOCBare.DOCBareClientServerTest >> > system test, where the response to the putLastTradedPrice >> > invocation is a soap message with an empty body. >> > Addressing is not involved. >> > First off, is the empty ssoap body OK and to be expected? >> > Secondly, if it is, what should I expect if this >> > client-server setup uses addressing and non-anonymous >> > ReplyTo? It seems we can distinguish the partial response >> > from the real response not by checking for an empty body >> > (regardless if this results in empty of no list content in the >> > message) but need to look also at the addressing headers ... >> > Any ideas? >> > >> > Andrea. >> > >> > > >
-- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
