Honestly, I think both things should be done. We definitely
shouldn't be creating details where one doesn't exist and isn't
needed. And hasDetails should definitely not return true if there
aren't details.
Dan
On Jul 26, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
Team,
I'm trying to get CXF to work with WSS4J for signature/encryption
right now.
I got the following error message back from WSS4J:
<soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/";>
<soap:Body>
<soap:Fault>
<faultcode>soap:Client</faultcode>
<faultstring>WSSECURITY_EX</faultstring>
</soap:Fault>
</soap:Body>
</soap:Envelope>
Partial error stack that produced that message:
[INFO] Exception in thread "main"
javax.xml.ws.soap.SOAPFaultException:
WSSECURITY_EX
[INFO] at
org.apache.cxf.jaxws.JaxWsClientProxy.invoke(JaxWsClientProxy.java:
218)
[INFO] at $Proxy27.doubleIt(Unknown Source)
[INFO] at
com.mycompany.webservice.client.WSClient.doubleIt(WSClient.java:26)
[INFO] at
com.mycompany.webservice.client.WSClient.main(WSClient.java:19)
[INFO] Caused by: org.apache.cxf.binding.soap.SoapFault: WSSECURITY_EX
[INFO] at
org
.apache
.cxf
.binding
.soap
.interceptor
.Soap11FaultInInterceptor
.handleMessage(Soap11FaultInInterceptor.java:70)
[INFO] at
org
.apache
.cxf
.binding
.soap
.interceptor
.Soap11FaultInInterceptor
.handleMessage(Soap11FaultInInterceptor.java:35)
[INFO] at
org
.apache
.cxf
.phase.PhaseInterceptorChain.doIntercept(PhaseInterceptorChain.java:
221)
The error message I'm getting is not my concern right now--it is
what CXF
appears to be doing to it. It seems(*) that CXF is placing an empty
Detail
element within this SOAPFault response. This triggers the
SOAPFault.hasDetail() method to be true, which causes users to need
to write
additional code to parse through the Detail's nonexistent
DetailElements--which is annoying once it turns out there's no
DetailEntries
to parse.
The culprit seems to be org.apache.cxf.interceptor.Fault's
getOrCreateDetail() method, which is called by various other
interceptors to
create Detail objects where there are actually no DetailEntries. Can
we
avoid doing this? I would say either of two things should be done:
(1) not
to create empty Detail objects if there are no DetailEntries (either
when
parsing SOAP error messages coming in externally, or when a CXF web
service
provider is sending back an error message), or (2) redefine
Fault.hasDetails() to mean that the SOAPFault has a Details object
*and* has
DetailEntries under it. Currently, the above XML SOAP response should
return false for hasDetails(), but it's returning TRUE because of
the empty
Detail element being created.
Another problem with artificial creation of SOAPFault Detail
elements is
that their absence or presence has semantic value according to the
SOAP
spec[2]:
"The detail element is intended for carrying application specific
error
information related to the Body element. It MUST be present if the
contents
of the Body element could not be successfully processed. It MUST NOT
be used
to carry information about error information belonging to header
entries.
Detailed error information belonging to header entries MUST be carried
within header entries.
The absence of the detail element in the Fault element indicates
that the
fault is not related to processing of the Body element. This can be
used to
distinguish whether the Body element was processed or not in case of
a fault
situation."
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Glen
(*) I'm saying "seems" because I'm relying on the XML response I see
in
Wireshark and the fact that hasDetails() is returning TRUE--
indicating a
Details object was created.
[1] http://java.sun.com/javaee/5/docs/api/javax/xml/soap/
SOAPFault.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383507
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Creation-of-empty-detail-elements-for-SOAPFaults-tp18667733p18667733.html
Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---
Daniel Kulp
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
