SOAP 1.2. vs. WS BP 1 & SOAP 1.1

[Allexicus Kernikus]

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!!

[Mikalai Zaikin]

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

[Ivan Krizsan]

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!

[udaykumar maddigatla]

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]

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]

Hey, thanks for the prompt reply.

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

[Mikalai Zaikin]

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]

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]

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