Hi,

> So if I understand correctly it was for parts declared as a type as opposed
> to an element. The thing is that those are supposed to have some sort of
> wrapper because you could very well define a part as being a complexType
> including a sequence. In which case you need some sort of concrete element
> that deals with those.
Exactly, sorry for being so unclear in my mail - I was in a hurry.

> So when we have something like:
>
>    <wsdl:part name="TestPart" type="tns:myComplexType"/>
>
> What we do is we effectively wrap the content of the part so that we get
> something like:
>
> <message>
>   <TestPart>
>     <firstElmtInSequence/>
>     <secondElmtInSequence/>
>   </TestPart>
> </message>

Yeah, the <TestPart> element is perfectly fine. The problem was that
Ode expected to receive a message like:

<message>
  <TestPart>
    <myComplexType>
      <firstElmtInSequence/>
      <secondElmtInSequence/>
    </myComplexType>
  </TestPart>
</message>

For example lets take a look at the TestActivityFlow1 test. There is
message defined by:

  <xsd:complexType name="testMessage">
      <xsd:sequence>
          <xsd:element name="requestID" type="xsd:string"/>
          <xsd:element name="requestText" type="xsd:string"/>
          ...
      </xsd:sequence>
  </xsd:complexType>

  <wsdl:message name="requestMessage">
      <wsdl:part name="requestMessageData" type="typens:testMessage"/>
  </wsdl:message>

In my opinion a recieved SOAP message should then look like:
  <message>  <!-- message wrapper -->
      <requestMessageData>  <!-- part wrapper -->
          <requestID>foo</requestID>
          <requestName>bar</requestName>
          ...
      </requestMessageData>
  <message>

instead of

  <message>  <!-- message wrapper -->
      <requestMessageData>  <!-- part wrapper -->
          <testMessage> <!-- mysterious wrapper -->
              <requestID>foo</requestID>
              <requestName>bar</requestName>
              ...
          </testMessage>
      </requestMessageData>
  <message>

What do you think?

Cheers,
  Tammo

Reply via email to