Jonas Johansson wrote: >Aha, so for document/literal mode you don't really need any special >SOAP-engine at all then, you can just use your ordinary SAX-or-similar >XML parser? Yes, I can see how that works... > >I guess that streaming of SOAP messages in RPC mode would be unnecessary >or impossible since RPC's would not be properly executed if the entire >message is not already in place. > >But while we are at it, what happens if geospatial services would like >to make use of other Web Service initiatives such as WS-security for >adding security at the message level or WS-BPEL for service chaining? I >guess at some point it just gets simpler to use built-in support for >such things from SOAP engines. > > > thats exactly the theory.
>Regards >Jonas > >On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 11:07 +1000, Rob Atkinson wrote: > > >>In the past I've implemented a gazetteer service with a WFS that simply >>auto-detected if the request was wrappen in SOAP (which is just an >>envelope if you dont use the intrinsically non-interoperable RPC mode) >>and responded with a SOAP wrapper if appropriate. >> >>It is unclear to me where and when we may want to propagate any >>information from the SOAP wrapper to the request, but I suspect in the >>future it may be used as part of Digital Rights Management - get SOAP to >>carry the authentication load. >> >>Rob A >> >>Chris Holmes wrote: >> >> >>>Jonas Johansson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Hi list, >>>> >>>>Maybe someone here has some knowledge on SOAP. I have been looking into >>>>the OGC move towards W3C Web Services standards for geospatial services >>>>and I have a question regarding performance when using SOAP. >>>> >>>>It is mentioned by many that large data sets is a performance issue when >>>>using SOAP messaging because the entire message need to be buffered at >>>>the server before sending a response to a client. Is this true? In that >>>>case, why? >>>> >>>> >>>You know, I read something similar as well about SOAP, and I had the >>>same reaction. I couldn't think of any fundamental reason that such a >>>thing would be true (though there very well could be), I took it to >>>mean more that it's just how most people implemented SOAP stuff. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Can't a SOAP enabled WFS server simply start sending a SOAP response >>>>message in a streamed fashion when responding to a WFS GetFeature >>>>request to include GML that is dynamically generated from a database, >>>>potentially delivering thousands of gigabytes of data encoded in the >>>>SOAP message body? >>>> >>>> >>>That's definitely what we're going to do with GeoServer. We'll have >>>to do it for WFS 1.1, and all you do is wrap SOAP headers around your >>>response. I see no reason you can't just stream out as normally - but >>>perhaps OGC is doing something different than how SOAP is supposed to >>>work? I don't really know, so don't go by my word, and let me know if >>>you figure out that there is some limit. But I'm with you, I see no >>>reason you can't just stream it in the same way. >>> >>>best regards, >>> >>>Chris >>> >>> >>> >>>>Thank you for any help! >>>> >>>>Jonas J >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Geotools-devel mailing list >>>>[email protected] >>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel >>>> >>>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Geotools-devel mailing list >>>[email protected] >>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel >>> >>> >>> > > > >_______________________________________________ >Geotools-devel mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > > _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
