Hello Glen, Dennis, Daniel, Thanks a lot for your answers.
I'm not a WSDL / Web Service expert so I'm not sure of my understanding of the specification. When I read the sentence : "The Profile defines the "operation signature" to be the fully qualified name of the child element of SOAP body of the SOAP input message described by an operation in a WSDL binding and the URI value of the wsa:Action SOAP header block, if present." I understand that the operation signature must be deduced from both the child element of SOAP body AND the URI value of wsa:Action. Is it wrong ? It seems that the wsdl2Java tool from CXF only uses the first thing and not the wsa:Action URI. This specification is a work in process from IHE and I guess it should be very important for them to stay in a fully normative way of designing their profile. Best regards, Nicolas. > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Glen Mazza [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : mardi 27 juillet 2010 05:58 > À : [email protected] > Objet : Re: Using the same SOAP message for two operations with > different WS-Addressing Actions not allowed ? > > > > Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > > > > But just because it's forbidden by WS-I BP doesn't mean it should not > be > > supported by CXF. If industry groups have designed their WSDLs to be > > non-compliant with WS-I BP that's their choice, and I don't think > it's > > CXF's place to be telling them they don't know what they're doing. A > > warning that they're violating WS-I BP would be the best way of > handling > > this type of WSDL. > > > > - Dennis > > > > I agree with you in theory, but with a safety concern. Let's say this > is a > health care web service which involves using the same input request > messages > for GivePatientAVitamin(patientID) and > PrintPatientsSensitiveMedicalDataInWashingtonPost(patientID). Should > CXF > really allow that risky behavior? If it were just the developer's > medical > data (or credit card info or whatever) that would be threatened, sure, > let > him take the risks--but this is other people's data, and it's not their > fault that the developer is less rigorous. Ideally, CXF should have > some > safeguards in place such that if Newbie Developer wants to use the same > input message for multiple operations that the wrong web service > operations > aren't being called, perhaps by having the CXF web service refuse to > operate/activate if it is ambiguous from the {SOAP request, soapAction > header} combo which web service operation was intended. > > Glen > > -- > View this message in context: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Using- > the-same-SOAP-message-for-two-operations-with-different-WS-Addressing- > Actions-not-allowed-tp2228236p2255422.html > Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. Ce message et les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et réservés à l'usage exclusif de ses destinataires. Il peut également être protégé par le secret professionnel. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci d'en avertir immédiatement l'expéditeur et de le détruire. L'intégrité du message ne pouvant être assurée sur Internet, la responsabilité du groupe Atos Origin ne pourra être recherchée quant au contenu de ce message. Bien que les meilleurs efforts soient faits pour maintenir cette transmission exempte de tout virus, l'expéditeur ne donne aucune garantie à cet égard et sa responsabilité ne saurait être recherchée pour tout dommage résultant d'un virus transmis. This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos Origin group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted.
