Hi,

I have a problem sending a large base64Binary parameter as part of a SOAP body 
using Gumbo build 9127.  The payload generated by Flex to be sent looks like 
this (truncated for brevity):

<SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"; 
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; 
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";>
  <SOAP-ENV:Body 
SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/";>
    <tns:mLoadCalibration xmlns:tns="x.com">
      <pFileName 
xsi:type="xsd:string">SCANNER_374_090511_1201_full.cal</pFileName>
      <pFileContent 
xsi:type="xsd:base64Binary">AABAQAAAu0MAAAzCMxEPwtSDDsKjRonCAAAWQ3JQtDwK1yM8eFMfvArX...IXD3uCWusQSh70AkBpBAPAbRpZjHEbNzKxAXE+tQA==</pFileContent>
    </tns:mLoadCalibration>
  </SOAP-ENV:Body>
</SOAP-ENV:Envelope>


Before the entire payload is sent, my responder fault handler is receiving an 
"Error #2006: The supplied index is out of bounds.".  The responder result 
handler is shortly after triggered, with the result form the web service.  

Looking at the raw data sent over the wire using Wireshark, I was able to see 
that Flex is truncating on send the contents of the  parameter (pFileContent), 
but then completing the send of the remainder of the payload.  Here is an 
example of what the received data looked like (note the truncation of the 
pFileContent element)

<SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"; 
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; 
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";>
  <SOAP-ENV:Body 
SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/";>
    <tns:mLoadCalibration xmlns:tns="x.com">
      <pFileName 
xsi:type="xsd:string">SCANNER_374_090511_1201_full.cal</pFileName>
      <pFileContent 
xsi:type="xsd:base64Binary">AABAQAAAu0MAAAzCMxEPwtSDDsKjRonCAAAWQ3JQtDwK1yM8eFMfvArX...IXD
    </tns:mLoadCalibration>
  </SOAP-ENV:Body>
</SOAP-ENV:Envelope>


Any ideas what could be causing this.  Any tips for debugging further?

Thanks,

Mike


Reply via email to