Win a copy of Spark in Action this week in the Open Source Projects forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Ron McLeod
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Paul Clapham
Sheriffs:
  • Tim Cooke
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • fred rosenberger
  • salvin francis
Bartenders:
  • Piet Souris
  • Frits Walraven
  • Carey Brown

SOAP 1.2. vs. WS BP 1 & SOAP 1.1

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 42
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
SOAP 1.2. clearly states that exactly one body element must (!) be present.

The WS BP 1.1. clearly states that exactly zero or one elements of the soap:body element (R9981). Then it goes on to reference SOAP 1.1. as the standart to follow. SOAP 1.1. in contrast states that a body element must (!) be present. - kind of confusing....

What do you guys think will be accurate at the test?

Many thanks in advance!!
 
Rancher
Posts: 3645
38
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm not sure soap:Body is optional in WS-I BP 1.1 -- maybe I overlooked it.

My understanding is that :

1) soap:Body must present in valid SOAP message (soap:Header is optional) , see: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383494

2) soap:Body may not have any siblings elements after it, see: http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html

R1011 An ENVELOPE MUST NOT have any element children of soap:Envelope following the soap:Body element.



HTH,
MZ



 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2198
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi!
Allexicus, you are partially correct. This is what the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 says about the presence of a SOAP body element in a SOAP envelope:


R9981 An ENVELOPE MUST have exactly zero or one child elements of the soap:Body element.


Note that the WS-I Basic Profile only concerns itself with SOAP 1.1!
My guess is that SOAP 1.2 was not finalized when the Basic Profile was written (this is also confirmed by the dates of the specification web pages I have seen).

The WS-I Basic profile is to be seen as a clarification of the SOAP, WSDL etc etc specifications, since, at times, they are not entirely clear. Also, issues and experiences concerning web service interoperability has arisen after the specifications were written and the Basic Profile attempts to capture these experiences and correct these issues.
Thus, if you read something in the SOAP specification and then the Basic Profile says something else, then the recommendation is to follow the Basic Profile,in order to be interoperable.
Best wishes!
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 69
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi

i too bit confused by seeing the BP 1.1 and SOAP 1.1 specifications.

i'm also confused about the usage of namespaces.

BP1.1 says soap's namepsace MUST be http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/

But where as SOAP 1.2 specification the name space MUST be http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope

which one to use?
 
Ivan Krizsan
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2198
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi!
Which SOAP namespace to use depends on which version of SOAP you want to use. There are differences between the format of a SOAP 1.1 message and the format of a SOAP 1.2 message.
As it stands, if you use SOAP 1.2, you cannot claim that you conform to the WS-I Basic Profile version 1.1.
Best wishes!
 
udaykumar maddigatla
Ranch Hand
Posts: 69
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hey, thanks for the prompt reply.

While writting the SCDJWS exam, did they specify the version in the questions?

 
Mikalai Zaikin
Rancher
Posts: 3645
38
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

udaykumar maddigatla wrote:Hey, thanks for the prompt reply.

While writting the SCDJWS exam, did they specify the version in the questions?



Hi !

They do not specify SOAP version, but the good news is that SCDJWS 5 questions based only on SOAP 1.1

Best regards,
MZ
 
udaykumar maddigatla
Ranch Hand
Posts: 69
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hey

is the scdjws exam on soap 1.1?

in the scdjws exam objectivies i saw SOAP 1.2.

will you please clarify about this?
 
Mikalai Zaikin
Rancher
Posts: 3645
38
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

udaykumar maddigatla wrote:Hey

is the scdjws exam on soap 1.1?

in the scdjws exam objectivies i saw SOAP 1.2.

will you please clarify about this?



Hi !

Unfortunately, SCDJWS 5 objectives posted on Sun web-site are not accurate.

HTH,
MZ
 
brevity is the soul of wit - shakepeare. Tiny ad:
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koop
https://coderanch.com/wiki/718759/books/Building-World-Backyard-Paul-Wheaton
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic