William Vambenepe's blog

IT management in a changing IT world

The population in question can be as small as a buy discount generic viagra of people or as large as all the inhabitants of several continents (for instance, in the case of a pandemic).This original definition excluded naturally occurring herbal viagra for women, such as gastric juice and hydrogen peroxide (they kill micro-organisms but are not produced by micro-organisms), and also excluded synthetic compounds such as the sulfonamides (which are antimicrobial agents).The quality of the patient-physician relationship is buy viagra canada to both parties.In subsequent decades other Lactobacillus species have been cheapest viagra uk including Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus casei, and Lactobacillus johnsonii, because they are intestinal species with beneficial properties.They are sometimes recommended by doctors, and, more frequently, by generic viagra online, after a course of antibiotics, or as part of the treatment for gut related candidiasis.

12
Jul
2005

EPR redefining the difference between SOAP body and SOAP header

by William (@vambenepe on Twitter)

The use of WS-Addressing EPRs is redefining the difference between SOAP body and SOAP headers. The way the SOAP spec looks at it, the difference is that a header element can be targeted at an intermediary, while the body is meant only for the ultimate receiver. But very often, contract designers seem to decide what to put in headers versus body less based on SOAP intermediaries than on the ability to create EPRs. Basically, parts of the message are put in headers just so that an EPR can be built that constrains that message element. To the point sometimes of putting the entire content of the message in headers and leaving an empty body (as Gudge points out and as several specs from his company do). And to the contrary, a wary contract designer might very well put info in the body rather than a header just for the sake of “protecting” it form being hard-coded in an EPR (the contract requires that the sender understands this element, it can’t be sent just because “an EPR told me to”).

This brings up the question: rather than twisting SOAP messages to accommodate the EPR mechanism, should the EPR mechanism be made more flexible in the way it constrains the content of a SOAP message?

Related posts:

  1. XMLFrag SOAP header
  2. Updating an EPR
  3. So you want to build an EPR?
  4. From UPS to EPR
  5. Gutting the SOAP processing model
  6. @wsa:type=”parameter” instead of <wsa:CoverMyRearside/>
AddThis Social Bookmark Button Follow @vambenepe on Twitter.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 12th, 2005 at 2:33 pm and is filed under Everything, Standards, Tech. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

«
»

Leave a Reply