[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3916?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13212804#comment-13212804
]
Jesse Pangburn commented on CXF-3916:
-------------------------------------
Hi Dan,
I don't think that's true. I looked up the spec before going down this path.
The W3C spec is at http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-core/
Here's the part about relatesTo:
/wsa:RelatesTo
This OPTIONAL (repeating) element information item contributes one abstract
[relationship] property value, in the form of an (IRI, IRI) pair. The content
of this element (of type xs:anyURI) conveys the [message id] of the related
message.
The spec says nothing about it being required, in fact it says in caps
"OPTIONAL".
Aki is probably looking at the original W3C submission, not the final spec.
The submission is available here: http://www.w3.org/Submission/ws-addressing/
It's different. It says:
/wsa:RelatesTo
This OPTIONAL (repeating) element information item contributes one abstract
[relationship] property value, in the form of a (URI, QName) pair. The
[children] property of this element (which is of type xs:anyURI) conveys the
[message id] of the related message. This element MUST be present if the
message is a reply.
This is probably where he got the idea that it was required, since it is
required in the submission version. Apparently that was lifted in the final
version.
Thanks,
Jesse
> partial response problem with SOAP 1.1 use of WS-Addressing
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CXF-3916
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3916
> Project: CXF
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JAX-WS Runtime
> Affects Versions: 2.4.2
> Reporter: Jesse Pangburn
> Assignee: Daniel Kulp
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: client, dispatch, soap11, ws-addressing
> Fix For: 2.3.10, 2.4.7, 2.5.3
>
>
> Description copied from email:
> I've read over this more and now see that the partial response stuff is
> definitely for asynchronous processing, so the check with the WS-Addressing
> relatesTo header makes sense. The problem (I think) appears in your checkin
> revision 705446 for ClientImpl.java in this section:
> {code}
> synchronized (message.getExchange()) {
> if (!isPartialResponse(message) && callback == null) {
> message.getExchange().put(FINISHED, Boolean.TRUE);
> message.getExchange().setInMessage(message);
> message.getExchange().notifyAll();
> }
> }
> {code}
> You added the "&& callback == null" test, but I think what is needed is "||
> callback == null". The idea here (again, as I'm reading it) is regarding
> these two cases:
> - it's an asynchronous response which is not a partial response
> - there is no callback, meaning it's a synchronous response
> In either of these cases you want to tell the exchange that it's finished and
> the message you just got is the inbound message. I think this worked for a
> long time without anyone running into this because in the synchronous case
> (callback == null), the only way you get a partialResponse==true is when
> WS-Addressing is engaged AND the server that you're connecting to doesn't
> return the optional (but almost always used) relatesTo header. Probably in
> the vast majority of cases either WS-Addressing isn't used or the relatesTo
> header is present in a response.
> If you agree, I can create a defect and describe this. Since the change is
> just && to ||, obviously it won't help to send you a patch file :-)
> Thanks,
> Jesse
> {code}
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Pangburn [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 6:37 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: partial response problem with SOAP 1.1 use of WS-Addressing and
> SOAPAction
> Hi,
> I invoked a SOAP 1.1 web service using CXF 2.4.2 DispatchImpl and that
> service immediately returned the following soap header:
> <soap:Header>
>
> <wsa:MessageID>uuid:A12B3727-0B3D-11E1-983D-DFB5348FF699</wsa:MessageID>
> <wsa:Action>response</wsa:Action>
> </soap:Header>
> My client hung for 60 seconds until a timeout was reached, at which point the
> response was available in the StaxSource. Tracing the problem into the code
> revealed that it was waiting because the message response it had received so
> far was deemed a "partial response" due to the following code which always is
> called when WS-Addressing is enabled in MAPCodec.java:
> private void markPartialResponse(SoapMessage message,
> AddressingProperties maps) {
> if (ContextUtils.isRequestor(message) && null != maps
> && (null == maps.getRelatesTo()
> || (null != maps.getRelatesTo()
> &&
> Names.WSA_UNSPECIFIED_RELATIONSHIP.equals(maps.getRelatesTo().getValue())))) {
> message.put(Message.PARTIAL_RESPONSE_MESSAGE, Boolean.TRUE);
> }
> }
> The problem, I think, is this condition "null == maps.getRelatesTo()". This
> essentially means that a WS-Addressing RelatesTo header is required to
> indicate that a message response is complete- even on a synchronous
> request/response. I think the source of this problem is that the original
> WS-Addressing submission to W3C said that "This element MUST be present if
> the message is a reply" in the description for the RelatesTo header (see
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/ws-addressing/#_Toc77464323). This language was
> struck from the final WS-Addressing 1.0 (see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-core/#msgaddrpropsinfoset) and means that
> RelatesTo is not required.
> While I think it was sloppy on the part of the service writer to not include
> the RelatesTo header, it is OPTIONAL according to the spec. So, especially
> in the case of a synchronous request, I think this code is incorrect. A CXF
> Dispatch client should not hang until timeout is reached because an optional
> header is not included in the response.
> Unfortunately, I'm not really sure what the correct solution is here since I
> don't understand the case for ever having a partial response message in a
> synchronous request/response. Should later code note that the
> request/response is synchronous and ignore this partial response flag? I
> assume the intention of this code is for asynchronous request/response so
> that the immediate response on the request's socket connection is not treated
> as the asynchronous response message.
> Any clues?
> Thanks,
> Jesse
> {code}
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
