I don't recall there being anything in WSI-BP that prohibits the
usage of
RPC-literal encoding, which results in multiple parts.
-mbs
On 9/5/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Oh yes, good question! The point of mapping headers into message
> content is that many applications/frameworks do not give you easy
access
> (or advise against accessing) message headers.
>
> Take, for example, BPEL processes. BPEL only gives you access to the
> abstract message definition. If headers are not defined and mapped
into
> the content, you can't access them in a portable way.
>
> Maybe we could have a configuration attribute to normalize using WSDL
> 1.1 or WSDL 2.0? That way, if there are no mapped headers and only
one
> SOAP body element, then we could have basic support for WSDL 2.0.
>
> I'm very interested in getting full WSDL 1.1 support because that's
> what's mostly used and deployed today. The tooling and
infrastructure
> ecosystem works great with WSDL 1.1 but still has ways to go with WSDL
> 2.0. With complete WSDL 1.1 support, we can make the most of
> ServiceMix today and gradually migrate to WSDL 2.0 when it becomes
more
> widespread.
>
> alex
>
> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> > I have attached an updated patch to the jira
> >
http://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/ManageAttachments.jspa?id=24443
> >
> > I still have some questions, now that I have a better
understanding of
> > what
> > the
> > patch do. Mainly, I'm questionning the need to the wsdl 1.1 jbi
> wrapper.
> > If all services exposed and invoked by servicemix are ws-i basic
profile
> > compliant, there is only one child in the soap body. Other parts
that
> > may be included in the normalized message may come from soap
headers.
> > So we are in the same case as for WSDL 2.0: only one element in the
> > soap body, and additioanl soap headers. However, for WSDL 2, soap
> > headers won't be mapped inside the xml content, but should be put
> > as properties on the message. So i'm not quite sure if headers
should
> > be put inside the content for WSDL 1.1, as it will not be
consistent.
> > I don't really see the point of the wrapper here.
> >
> > Thoughts ?
> >
> > On 8/31/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> >> > The binding model should only be built on top of the wsdl for the
> >> current
> >> > HttpEndpoint (either consumer or provider). This WSDL can be
> >> > explicitely set, or may be auto-generated using the target
endpoint
> >> > WSDL. If the WSDL is provided, there is nothing to do, but if
the
> >> WSDL
> >> > is generated, we have to:
> >> > * check if there is any existing binding infos (for example, if
the
> >> > target
> >> > endpoint is a soap provider). In this case, we should use
the
> >> > binding
> >> > informations
> >> > * else, we need a flag on the http endpoint to set the binding
style
> >> > (rpc / doc). If the user need to provide a more detailed
> binding,
> >> > then he has to provide it in the wsdl.
> >>
> >> Ok, that clarifies it.
> >>
> >>
> >> > I'm trying to abstract the SoapBindingModel a bit more to be
able
to
> >> > easily handle a plain HTTP binding.
> >> > WSDL 2.0 bindings will require another reformat later i guess.
> >>
> >> Cool! I might be able to help with WSDL 2.0 as well.
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> alex
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
