DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16141>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16141 Wrong return ParameterDesc returned during deserialization when using a split WSDL description [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-01-15 22:12 ------- Ok, figured it out... there were two issues.. one in the Axis code and the other in my WSDL. The Axis code issue was covering up the WSDL issue. First, the Axis code... in OperationDesc, the method getOutputParamByQName (QName) was returning the wrong information when searching for a parameter that did not exist. It would loop through the array of parameters looking for a matching QName.. if it did not find a match, it would return the last parameter it checked. I changed the method so that if a matching QName wasn't found, the method returns a null which is what the calling code in RPCHandler expects. Once I solved that issue, I had to go back and figure out why the parameter I was looking for wasn't being found. The reason is that the parameter name in the WSDL definition did not match the serialized parameter name in the SOAP Envelope. (WSDL Spec Section 3.5: "Each message part (parameter) appears under the wrapper, represented by an accessor named identically to the corresponding parameter of the call"). I renamed the message part in the WSDL definition and all worked perfectly. Why was this showing up only in split WSDL documents? Because only the split WSDL documents had the wrong description. The single WSDL documents I was using were created by appending ?WSDL to the end of the service URL which, of course, generated the appropriate WSDL. It's always the little things you overlook that cause the biggest hassles isn't it :-) Anyway, the fix to OperationDesc has been committed and the code works.
