[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-2246?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12489172
]
Tim Buss commented on AXIS2-2246:
---------------------------------
The fix I am refererring to is the "critical" null namespace for parameter
element fix for rpc-literal ws-i compliance that was the original bug. I tried
a recent 1.2 snapshot and the fix did not appear to be there. I will try a
more recent one when I get time but you may want to check it made it over.
As to the duplicate element issue. My main concern is that the condition
should not be allowed to generate code that creates non compliant services as
seems to be the case currently. If it is not possible to have axis2 work
correctly when this condition occurs then it should generate an error, probably
when it tries to create the new element duplicate.
I don't know how axis 1.x. works. I believe it does work in this case because
we have a potentially duplicate element defined in the schema and as far as I
know we didn't have to do anything special because of that.
> Rpc-Literal Client and Server adb codegen create messages that are non WS-I
> complient
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AXIS2-2246
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-2246
> Project: Axis 2.0 (Axis2)
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: adb
> Affects Versions: 1.1.1
> Environment: Axis 1.5, Tomcat 5.5, Axis2 1.1.1, Axis2 Eclipse codegen
> plugin 1.1.1, Eclipse 3.2, WTP 1.5.1, Windows 2003 server
> Reporter: Tim Buss
> Priority: Critical
> Attachments: Axis2RPCLiteralTest.wsdl
>
>
> There appears to be two problems. The most obvious is that the RPC-literal
> message sent by the generated client and accepted by the generated service is
> incorrect . The following message body is sent for the various test cases I
> have tried - string, complex type, nested complex type.
> <soapenv:Body>
> <ns:OperationName>
> <ns:PartName>
> .............content.....
> </ns:PartName>
> </ns:OperationName>
> </soapenv:Body>
> but it should be:
> <soapenv:Body>
> <ns:OperationName>
> <PartName>
> .............content.....
> </PartName>
> </ns:OperationName>
> </soapenv:Body>
> PartName should be a non qualified name. Axis 1.3 did it this way, and other
> sources support this as being the correct form for rpc-literal. In
> particualr WS-I Basic 1.0 states:
> "4.7.20 Part Accessors
> For rpc-literal envelopes, WSDL 1.1 is not clear what namespace, if any, the
> accessor elements for parameters and return value are a part of. Different
> implementations make different choices, leading to interoperability problems.
> R2735 An ENVELOPE described with an rpc-literal binding MUST place the part
> accessor elements for parameters and return value in no namespace.
> R2755 The part accessor elements in a MESSAGE described with an rpc-literal
> binding MUST have a local name of the same value as the name attribute of the
> corresponding wsdl:part element.
> Settling on one alternative is crucial to achieving interoperability. The
> Profile places the part accessor elements in no namespace as doing so is
> simple, covers all cases, and does not lead to logical inconsistency. "
> http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.2.html
> The second problem that I have yet to narrow down is that with a much more
> complex type, the generated client sends a message with a body like this
> where the "part" element is not present:
> <soapenv:Body>
> <ns:OperationName>
> .............content.....
> </ns:OperationName>
> </soapenv:Body>
> One other difference that may be a factor in this case is that my complex
> service is one way.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
