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
