Yes, WS-I BP 1.1 supports RPC literal, so there will be several parts in the message, but they are all wrapped inside an element with the operation name. This lead to a single child for the soap body element. Currently, servicemix-http passes this child as the content of the normalized message.
On 9/5/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think Maciej meant "RPC literal" (non-encoded XML), which leads to multiple parts and is allowed by WS-I BP 1.1. alex Guillaume Nodet wrote: > See > http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html#SOAP_encodingStyle_Attribute > > > it seems pretty clear for me, but maybe i misread it. > > On 9/5/06, Maciej Szefler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 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 >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> > >
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet
