You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> on 2013/02/05 14:38:14 UTC
CXF-4805: what's up with OPTIONS
Am I write in believeing that OPTIONS verbs should be intercepted and rejected?
Re: CXF-4805: what's up with OPTIONS
Posted by Aki Yoshida <el...@gmail.com>.
If the call is going to the SOAP service, BP 1.1 seems to ask for 4xx,
as to indicate it's a client error.
http://www.ws-i.org/profiles/basicprofile-1.1-2004-08-24.html#HTTP_Client_Error_Status_Codes
In particular, it mentions "405 Method not Allowed".
2013/2/5 Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>:
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am I write in believeing that OPTIONS verbs should be intercepted and rejected?
>
> Assuming you are talking about SOAP, most likely all verbs other than POST (and empty verb to account for transports like JMS/tcp/etc...) should be intercepted.
>
> The QUESTION is whether a 4xx HTTP error code should be returned with an empty body or a normal soap fault created on a 500 error code. I'm not really sure about that.
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
Re: CXF-4805: what's up with OPTIONS
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am I write in believeing that OPTIONS verbs should be intercepted and rejected?
Assuming you are talking about SOAP, most likely all verbs other than POST (and empty verb to account for transports like JMS/tcp/etc...) should be intercepted.
The QUESTION is whether a 4xx HTTP error code should be returned with an empty body or a normal soap fault created on a 500 error code. I'm not really sure about that.
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com