[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3272?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Dennis Sosnoski resolved CXF-3272.
----------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 3.0.1
Fixed by http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/commit/c613aa49
> WS-RM returns Fault for duplicate message received, should probably return
> acknowledgement instead
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CXF-3272
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3272
> Project: CXF
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: WS-* Components
> Affects Versions: 2.3.2
> Reporter: Dennis Sosnoski
> Assignee: Dennis Sosnoski
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.0.1
>
>
> The WS-RM Destination code currently throws an exception when a duplicate
> message is received if using AtMostOnce or ExactlyOnce delivery assurances.
> This gets turned into a Fault which means nothing to the RM Source, and may
> interfere with the proper operation of other WS-RM implementations.
> A better way to handle this is to return an HTTP 200 OK status (or equivalent
> for other transports) along with a SequenceAcknowledgement, so that the RM
> Source gets back information to help it in recovery.
> For one-way scenarios this can just be returned directly. For two-way
> scenarios it should be returned along with a copy of the application response
> to the original message (at least if an Offer was included in the original
> CreateSequence and accepted by the RM Destination, meaning RM is operating in
> both directions of message flow - see the Replay model implemented by Metro,
> along with at least some versions of .Net and Axis2/Sandesha2:
> http://wso2.org/library/2792).
> Metro's handling is interesting. If RM is operating in the response direction
> they naturally hold a copy of each response message until acknowledged, but
> then even after the message has been acknowledged they use a WeakReference to
> keep it available until it is reclaimed by GC. If RM is *not* operating in
> the response direction they still appear to keep the response available with
> a WeakReference, allowing it to be resent in response to a duplicate message.
> That seems like a good approach.
> If the response message is not available, is there any reason not to use an
> HTTP 200 response and send back a SOAP message with only the
> SequenceAcknowledgement?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
