Hi,
Not so much a code question but more of a planning/strategic query.
I am wondering whether to set things on our LAMP server up as an active
intermediary (http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#activeinter) or just be
the end node, do our parsing etc. and build a new message from scratch
which we send on to the ultimate end node.
In a bit more detail, the situation is as follows. Various physical
locations around the UK submit spreadsheets to our UK server over a VPN.
Data protection law makes us strip those documents of various details
before we send them on to a processor outside the EU (SOAP again, VPN
again). This parsing of body data can mostly be done automatically but
in certain cases, manual interference may be required to verify certain
data.
This seems an ideal case for an active intermediary as we'll have to
amend the body before sending it to the end node. What I'm unsure about
it whether or not the potential manual interference, which could mean a
delay of days, throws a spanner in the works. I could just pretend to be
the end point, store the data in a DB, do our parsing thing and when a
cron job sees it's ready to be moved on, create a new envelope from
scratch and send it form us to the entity abroad like an entirely new one.
Could someone please elaborate on the advantages and disadvantages of
acting as an active intermediary vs rebuilding messages from scratch? In
other words, can a SOAP message "linger" or does it expect to be sent in
a matter of seconds? For example, if our server reboots while there were
lingering messages, waiting to be given the go-ahead for being
forwarded, what happens?
The framework's 2 paragraphs aside, I struggled to find good
documentation on the practicalities of an active SOAP intermediary.
Thank you!
Regards,
Jim
--
PHP Soap Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
