Been trying to educate myself some more on this issue, and I'm remaining stumped. I don't see any mentions of such a feature in the 2005/02 spec or even in the latest WS-RX draft. Searching the web didn't reveal anything really besides CXF/Celtix artifacts.
So I have another question in addition to my one below - what is the benefit of partial responses? I remember someone citing performance benefits to me. However this seems rather unlikely as SequenceAcknowledgment piggybacking will be possible in most scenarios. Even if your application consisted solely of one way messages, the only way to do RM with decent performance is to only acknowledge every so often. An HTTP connection back to the message sender is unlikely to be the performance bottleneck. Especially when you factor in the sizes of the messages. Acknowledgments are about as small as a message gets, and I would guess that typically the application messages will be larger. Since XML parsing is where the bottleneck is (HTTP introduces some latency which isn't an issue for seqacks and represents maybe 20% of the raw time), doing a partial response seems unlikely to have any net benefit. What am I missing here? - Dan On 1/9/07, Dan Diephouse < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
-- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
