Major Description
This was reported in
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/SwA-Wrong-Content-Type-of-root-part-td5757786.html
The original issue that was reported in the above message is about the wrong type value set for the SOAP envelope part in a non-MTOM multipart message under SOAP 1.2.
While looking at the code, there seem to be other inconsistency as well.
To illustrate these issues, the current behavior is shown below, where P refers to the package's content-type and E refers to the envelope's content-type:
Case 1: No MTOM using SOAP 1.2
P Content-Type: multipart/related; type="application/soap+xml"; action="urn:test:greetMe"; boundary="uuid:936da01f-9abd-4d9d-80c7- 02af85c822a8"; start="<root.message@cxf.apache.org>"; start-info="application/soap+xml"; action="urn:test:greetMe"
E Content-Type: text/xml; charset=UTF-8; type="application/soap+xml"; action="urn:test:greetMe"
Case 2: No MTOM using SOAP 1.1
P Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/xml"; boundary="uuid:936da01f-9abd-4d9d-80c7- 02af85c822a8"; start="<root.message@cxf.apache.org>"; start-info="text/xml"
E Content-Type: text/xml; charset=UTF-8; type="text/xml"
Case 3: MTOM using SOAP 1.2
P Content-Type: multipart/related; type="application/xop+xml"; boundary="uuid:936da01f-9abd-4d9d-80c7- 02af85c822a8"; start="<root.message@cxf.apache.org>"; start-info="application/soap+xml"; action="urn:test:greetMe"
E Content-Type: application/xop+xml; charset=UTF-8; type="application/soap+xml"; action="urn:test:greetMe"
Case 4: MTOM using SOAP 1.1
P Content-Type: multipart/related; type="application/xop+xml"; boundary="uuid:936da01f-9abd-4d9d-80c7- 02af85c822a8"; start="<root.message@cxf.apache.org>"; start-info="text/xml"
E Content-Type: application/xop+xml; charset=UTF-8; type="text/xml"
The issues
1. the content-type of E in Case 1 is wrong (the reported issue)
2. the type parameter in E for non-MTOM cases 1 and 2 are not needed
3. the start-info parameter for MTOM SOAP 1.2 case 3 does not conform to the Mtom spec http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xop10-20050125/. According to this spec, the action parameter is part of the start-info value and not a separate property. This is also relevant for Case 1 which generates the action property at P's content-type.
We should fix this behavior but regarding issue 3, there is some concern that we might need to provide an option to fallback to the old incorrect behavior.