Thank you very very much!
Anne Thomas Manes schrieb:
rpc/literal and wrapped document/literal may look identical on the wire if you define your doc/literal schema as elementFormDefault="unqualified". If you define the schema as elementFormDefault="qualified", then the parameter elements will be namespace qualified, and the messages won't be quite the same.
The major difference between rpc/literal and wrapped doc/literal is that with rpc/literal you do not have a schema of the contents of the <soap:Body>, and with wrapped doc/literal you do have a schema. When using rpc/literal, you don't define the message element, you only define the element types, and the SOAP engine automatically builds the message structure based on the type definitions. You can validate the message using a schema, but the validation routine must understand the RPC generation conventions, so it's not quite as straightforward as when using doc/literal.
Another important difference is that .NET supports wrapped doc/literal (by default), but it does not support rpc/literal.
rpc/encoded is a significantly different creature than rpc/literal. In this case, the SOAP engine constructs the message not based on the schema definition, but based on the SOAP encoding model. Schema validation typically doesn't work.
Anne
On 5/12/05, Mike Haller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Anne!
I changed operation style to "wrapped" in the server-config.wsdd It added an additional element between the parameter and the soap body element. It's working fine now! :-)
@All But - what's the difference to RPC-style then?
However, the I kept struggling with Axis+Castor+Serializer the last few hours and am very tired of all the neat little problems arising on the way... my last one was a case-sensitivity problem. I had elements in my schema with lower-case names (e.g. <xsd:element name="foobar" type="xsd:string"/>) and Castor generated Foobar.class. The web service client got an answer with the element "foobar", and so could not find the appropriate deserializer. I changed all the names to have the first character upper case, and everything works smooth now. (I hope this is the right way to do this)
regards MIke
Anne Thomas Manes schrieb:
If you're using document/literal, then you won't get an operation name unless you define one. I sugesst you use the document/literal wrapped convention, in which you wrap your input parameter with an element that has the same name as your operation.
Anne
On 5/12/05, Mike Haller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I changed a lot of WSDL and WSDD stuff, so now I get
<soapenv:Body> <myparameter xsi:nil="true" xmlns=""/> </soapenv:Body>
still missing the operation name itself. The client send the wrong SOAP request. Where do I have to tell the client (generated with wsdl2java) that he needs to include the operation name?
I think it should be something like this:
<soapenv:Body> <myOperation> <myParameter xsi:nil="true" xmlns=""/> </myOperation> </soapenv:Body>
Mike Haller schrieb:
Hi,
i've got the following exception:
-------------------------------- AxisFault faultCode: {http://xml.apache.org/axis/}Client faultSubcode: faultString: No such operation 'in0' faultActor: faultNode: faultDetail: {http://xml.apache.org/axis/}stackTrace:No such operation 'in0' at org.apache.axis.providers.java.RPCProvider.processMessage(RPCProvider.java:179)
at org.apache.axis.providers.java.JavaProvider.invoke(JavaProvider.java:319) ... --------------------------------
However, the SOAP request seems to look like this (the output comes from one custom handler):
-------------------------------- <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"; xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";><soapenv:Body> <in0 xsi:nil="true" xmlns="myns1"/></soapenv:Body></soapenv:Envelope> --------------------------------
The output of msgContext.getOperationDesc() returns the correct method name, which is completely missing in the above soap message. I'm wondering where the problem lies and can't find it.
Perhaps someone can direct me into the right direction?
regards MIke
