A Preview of WS-I Basic Profile 1.1
On 12th August 2003 WS-I (Web Services Interoperability Organization) announced the release of the final specification of Basic Profile 1.0 a set of recommendations on how to use web services specifications to maximize interoperability. For developers, users, and vendors of web services and web services tools this is a big leap forward to achieving interoperability in the emerging and fast changing world of web services. But what else has WS-I been working on?
WS-I recognizes the fact that Basic Profile 1.0 is just a beginning and that it's a long road toward web services maturity and interoperability. In its mission toward accelerating the adoption of web services and promoting interoperability, the Basic Profile Working Group, which developed Basic Profile 1.0, is tasked with generating Basic Profile 1.1 to incorporate attachments. The charter for the WG says:
The working group is also charged with addressing the issue of incorporating support for attachments in a follow-on minor revision of the Web Services Basic Profile, henceforth to be named Web Services Basic Profile 1.1. The Web Services Basic Profile 1.1 shall have as its foundation the Web Services Basic Profile 1.0 plus:
SOAP Messages with Attachments, W3C Note, 11 December 2000"
Basic Profile 1.1, as the name indicates, is the next version of Basic Profile. It builds on 1.0, adding support for SOAP Messages with Attachments (SwA) and WSDL 1.1's Section 5 MIME bindings. As part of the process of releasing a Profile, other Working Groups within WS-I develop sample applications and test tools for the Profile. This ensures that the Profile is implementable and "debugged" before its final release. Like Basic Profile 1.0, Basic Profile 1.1 will be released with sample applications and test tools.
This article provides a preview of Basic Profile 1.1 based on the latest, as of this article, Basic Profile 1.1 Working Group Draft. The Basic Profile Working Group has been working on Basic Profile 1.1 since January 2003. In the course of its development the WG identified more than 70 technical issues that needed to be resolved. Only a very few minor ones remain. Please remember that this preview is based upon a Working Group Draft; as a work in progress can (and almost certainly will) be modified as the draft Profile is reviewed and refined.
Attachments, SwA and Interoperability
As web services begin to be used and deployed for serious applications, it is critical to have an interoperable attachment specification profiled along with SOAP 1.1, and WSDL 1.1. There are several reasons for the necessity of attachments when carrying large amount of data, either binary or other XML documents. Some of the advantages of attachments include smaller message size, smaller memory requirements, smaller processing time (no need to convert binary data to base-64), and, most importantly, streaming. Attachments allow applications to use appropriate APIs (such as the JavaBeans Activation Framework) to process data in a streaming fashion. This makes a big difference in performance, for example, when BLOBS and CLOBS from an application database are shipped inside a SOAP Envelope. The advantages of attachments are well documented in SwA, SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature, XML, SOAP and Binary Data, Proposed Infoset Addendum to SOAP Messages with Attachments, and SOAP Message Transmission Optimization Mechanism. The XMLP WG is also working on attachment technology for SOAP 1.2.
Basic Profile 1.0 facilitates interoperability at a basic level -- SOAP 1.1, WSDL 1.1, UDDIv2 (see UDDI Version 2.04 API Specification and UDDI Version 2.03 Data Structure Reference), etc. But one thing that is missing from Basic Profile 1.0 is support for attachments. The use of attachments affects web services interoperability with regard to packaging, formatting and serialization.
The most widely implemented and accepted attachment technology is MIME. SwA combines MHTML and content-id URIs (CID) for referencing MIME parts in SOAP. Basic Profile 1.1 has selected SwA as the attachment technology and WSDL 1.1 Section 5 MIME bindings for describing SwA. Basic Profile 1.1, as with Basic Profile 1.0, clarifies, fixes, and subsets the relevant specs to make it more interoperable and removes ambiguities. This addresses a real need that developers and users of web services have when dealing with large binary data and transporting it within a SOAP 1.1 Envelope.
The direction that Basic Profile 1.1 has taken fits very nicely with the direction that XMLP WG has taken with respect to attachments for SOAP 1.2, as documented in SOAP Message Transmission Optimization Mechanism (MTOM). Both use MIME and are based on SwA. MTOM goes a step further by including attachments as part of the Infoset (since SOAP 1.2 is built around Infoset), thus making the SOAP 1.2 processing model applicable to the attachments as well. The messages on the wire in both cases will look very similar. MTOM is an evolutionary approach to attachment technology, similar to the transition from SOAP 1.1 to SOAP 1.2.
Basic Profile 1.1 adds support for attachments in a backward compatible way, as required by the charter. What that means is that all Basic Profile 1.0 artifacts (DESCRIPTION, MESSAGE, INSTANCE, etc.) that were conformant with Basic Profile 1.0 will be conformant with Basic Profile 1.1. This is ensured by removing or modifying the requirements in Basic Profile 1.0 which restricted the binding to SOAP HTTP binding, allowing either SOAP HTTP binding or MIME binding.
SwA is quite a robust specification, but the WSDL 1.1 Section 5 MIME bindings are underspecified, which leads to interoperability problems. Basic Profile 1.1 ties the MIME binding of section 5 in WSDL 1.1 to SwA. The MIME bindings have been interpreted to mean things other than SwA. It also fixes ambiguities in the MIME binding as well as bugs in the MIME binding schema.
The WSDL 1.1 snippet below illustrates what one can do with Basic Profile 1.1 for rpc/literal style (please note that the namespace prefixes are bound to the same namespace URIs as in Section 1.2 of WSDL 1.1):
<wsdl:message name="msg-in"> <wsdl:part name="photo-reference" type="xsd:anyURI"/> <wsdl:part name="photo-attachment" type="xsd:base64Binary"/> </wsdl:message> <wsdl:message name="msg-out"> <wsdl:part name="result" type="xsd:string"/> </wsdl:message> <wsdl:portType name="my-portType"> <wsdl:operation name="my-operation"> <wsdl:input message="tns:msg-in"/> <wsdl:output message="tns:msg-out"/> </wsdl:operation> </wsdl:portType> <wsdl:binding name="my-binding" type="tns:my-portType"> <soap:binding style="rpc" transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http"/> <wsdl:operation name="my-operation"> <soap:operation soapAction="http://example.com/soapaction"/> <wsdl:input> <mime:multipartRelated> <mime:part> <soap:body parts="photo-reference" use="literal" namespace="http://example.com/some-namespace"/> </mime:part> <mime:part> <mime:content part="photo-attachment" type="application/octetstream"/> </mime:part> </mime:multipartRelated> </wsdl:input> <wsdl:output> <soap:body use="literal" namespace="http://example.com/some-namespace"/> </wsdl:output> </wsdl:operation> </wsdl:binding>
In the snippet above, the
photo-reference part of the input message is bound to the SOAP Body and the
photo-attachment part of the input message is bound to a separate MIME part. An example input message for the
my-binding binding would be
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Related; boundary=boundary; type=text/xml; start="<firstname.lastname@example.org>" Content-Description: This is an optional message description. --boundary Content-Type: text/xml; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-ID: <email@example.com> <?xml version='1.0' ?> <env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"> <env:Body xmlns:types="http://example.com/some-namespace"> <types:my-operation> <photo-reference>cid:firstname.lastname@example.org</photo-reference> </types:my-operation> </env:Body> </env:Envelope> --boundary Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-ID: <email@example.com> ...binary photograph... --boundary--
Note that the input message is bound to the MIME binding, whereas the output message is bound to the Basic Profile 1.0 SOAP HTTP binding. Such mixing is allowed by Basic Profile 1.1. In fact, Basic Profile 1.1 goes further and says that if the binding used is MIME, but the SOAP Body is the only MIME part listed, then the sender may choose to send the message using the SOAP HTTP binding (if there are no attachments) or the MIME binding.
Pages: 1, 2