Hi,
It seems we are going to be *bug-compatible* with WSE3.0 CTP....Below mentioned is a bug in WSE3.0 in the way it handles Content- ID's.
I'm *-1* on changing the way Axis2 handles content-id's for the sake of interoperability with WSE...... IMO we should stick to the standards.....
Following is an extract from " Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators" RFC specifying how to convert a URL to a content-id....
A "cid" URL is converted to the corresponding Content-ID message
header [MIME] by removing the "cid:" prefix, converting %hh hex-
escaped characters to their ASCII equivalents and enclosing the
remaining parts with an angle bracket pair, "<" and ">". For
example, "mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" corresponds toMessage-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
According to what I saw in WSE3.0 CTP, it's mime generator is not doing any of the above mentioned things. They are putting the raw URL as the content-ID
Following is a message part captured from WSE CTp...
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=--MIMEBoundary632572390051733984; type="application/xop+xml"; start="cid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"; start-info="text/xml; charset=utf-8;----MIMEBoundary632572390051733984
content-id: cid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
content-type: application/xop+xml; charset=utf-8; type="text/xml; charset=utf-8"content-transfer-encoding: binary<soap:Envelope> ......
<GetChartResult>
<xop:Include href="">cid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"/>
</GetChartResult></soap:Envelope>----MIMEBoundary632572390051733984
content-id: cid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
According to the RFC above should be
content-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
When it comes to interoperability I feel these are the most important thigns MTOM implementors have to take care.URL to the RFC:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2111.txt
Regards,
~Thilina--
On 7/16/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:Thilina,
well, i ended up fixing geronimo. i've updated the geronimo jars to
snapshot. (you may need to build them from svn till they update the
snapshots for maven). If you have any other problems, let me know.
thanks,
dims
On 7/15/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thilina,
>
> best way to do this is to get patches to geronimo. Could u spend say
> 30 mins and let me know? we need to get geronimo fixes in ASAP.
>
> -- dims
>
> On 7/15/05, Thilina Gunarathne < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > Today when i tried to run the MTOM test cases I found out that they are
> > failing and MTOM is not working :( . I know this is unavoidable with the
> > changes we are doing to other modules, unless we have a way to test MTOM.
> >
> > I think it's better If we can come up with a way to run MTOM test cases
> > whenever we are doing a commit. (For the moment MTOM test cases have been
> > excluded due to unavailability of JavaMail & Activation). A separate maven
> > goal, for which we guarantee to the presence of java mail & activation, will
> > be a fine solution for this. If not we'll continuously face this problem...
> >
> > Devs,
> > Till we have a mechanism to test MTOM pls be carefull with ur
> > changes.......Specially OM and Transport packages..
> >
> > ~Thilina
> >
> > --
> > "May the SourcE be with u"
> > http://www.bloglines.com/blog/thilina
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
--
Davanum Srinivas - http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
"May the SourcE be with u"
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/thilina
--
"May the SourcE be with u"
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/thilina
