> Thanks Simon. If interoperability is still an issue, I think that Web Service isn't
> yet ready for enterprise-class deployment. The promise and power it brings would
> fall apart..
TCP/IP has been around for, what, more than 3 decades, and there have
been interop quirks as recent as a year a
Thanks Simon. If interoperability is still an issue, I think that Web Service isn't yet ready for enterprise-class deployment. The promise and power it brings would fall apart..
Simon Fell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
different tools support different parts of the XSD spec, so yougenerate your WSDL
than MS
SOAP Toolkit.
Anne
- Original Message -
From:
Vishal Shah
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:49
PM
Subject: Re: design question
Thanks Anne.. My original service was of an
RPC/Literal style (it returned a DOM element) and worked f
different tools support different parts of the XSD spec, so you
generate your WSDL with tool A, but tool B can't process it. Typical
sticking points include choice, derivation by restriction, model
groups. In addition many tools still generate invalid schemas, lack of
required import statements whe
Thanks Anne.. My original service was of an RPC/Literal style (it returned a DOM element) and worked fine within Java environment...Then came a requirement to consume it from a VB 6 client and all sort of interoperability issues started cropping up... Since, I'm stuck with infrastructure limitation
Simon,
What kind of practical problems with doc/lit are there ? I would like to know..
thanks
Simon Fell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:17:24 -0400, in soap you wrote:>Doc/lit doesn't define type mappings, but it definitively specifies the>structure of the message via XML Sch
That was the problem. I restarted my web & appservers and it worked.
So these freshly deployed soap services are no specail than usual modules deployed under iplanet. They get cached.
Thanks for the suggestion again.
Scott Nichol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you sure that the service code
Are you sure that the service code you show below corresponds to the
class being loaded on the server? Did you have a previous version
that you copied over? If so, did you restart the webapp or servlet
container?
On 19 Jun 2003 at 12:19, ymchatty wrote:
>
> Here is the client code that sets
I saw
that your Qname is different than your TargetObjectUrl, could that be the
reason?
--
wei
-Original Message-From: ymchatty
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:19
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: design
question
Here is the client code that
Here is the client code that sets the params
--
params.addElement(new Parameter("nameToLookup", String.class, nameToLookup, null)); call.setParams(params);
// Invoke the call. Response resp;
try {re
; WSDL messages differently. (With RPC style you must define your s
> using the type= attribute, while Document style requires the element=
> attribute.) This situation reduces the reusability of a .
>
> Anne
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Scott Nichol" &l
What is your client code that creates the Vector of parameters? From
the exception, it looks as though the Vector has a single parameter
of type String. The service class, however, does not have a sayHello
method that takes a string. Given that you are providing a mapping
for the Hello class
I am getting the following exception, as I verified that I specified the correct method name and type in both the client program and as well in the descriptor. Pls let me know what I am missing.
Here is the client code:
--
// Map the types. smr.mapTypes(
e, while Document style requires the element=attribute.) This situation reduces the reusability of a .Anne- Original Message -From: "Scott Nichol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:32 PMSubject: Re: design question> Are you t
-
From: "Scott Nichol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: design question
> Are you talking about rpc/encoded messages in the absence of WSDL?
> If there is WSDL for the service, are there still ambiguities? My
> Perhaps -- but with SOAP Section 5 we encountered interoperability issues
> with types as simple as booleans.
I know at least one implementation that does not handle booleans
well, NuSOAP. And guess what: it still has problems with booleans
using doc/lit. It was not Section 5 that caused the
uot;Scott Nichol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 3:18 PM
> Subject: Re: design question
>
>
> > In what way does doc/lit define language type mappings? I've never
> > really understood why doc/lit is
h
doc/literal unless we use some of the more advanced constructs, such as
groups.
Anne
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Fell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: design question
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:17:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:17:24 -0400, in soap you wrote:
>Doc/lit doesn't define type mappings, but it definitively specifies the
>structure of the message via XML Schema. Because the two applications know
>in advance exactly what the message structure is, the details of how the
>SOAP message proces
the SOAP platform in your WAS 403 system.
I'm pretty sure that GLUE can run in WAS 403.
Anne
- Original Message -
From: Vishal Shah
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: design question
Pl see my response below..
Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROT
of the message. The
interoperability issues arise when two different SOAP message procesors
interpret SOAP Section 5 slightly differently.
Anne
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Nichol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 3:18 PM
Subject
One more comment. I consider it out of the ordinary for the code
implementing a service method to manipulate XML in any way. As such,
your method that returns a DOM element seems quite odd to me. One
typically uses constructs more native to the implementation language,
such as a class instan
validation (sometimes
just by declaring a deployment option).
>
> Anne
> - Original Message -
> From: Vishal Shah
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: design question
>
>
> Thanks Anne for elucidating. I
> I don't concur with you on thing you mentioned below in the first paragraph. If you
> factor interoperability & infrastructure issues in, your design would be definitely
> affected accordingly. If your service is going to be consumed by a VB6 client or
> .net client (or any non-java consumer)
iginal Message -
From: Vishal Shah
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: design question
Thanks Anne for elucidating. I'm stuck with the legacy system and infrastructure that supports it.. I need to find a clumsy way to get around to make things wor
ke it simple to request
validation (sometimes just by declaring a deployment option).
Anne
- Original Message -
From:
Vishal Shah
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:58
AM
Subject: Re: design question
Thanks Anne for elucidating. I
Thanks Anne for elucidating. I'm stuck with the legacy system and infrastructure that supports it.. I need to find a clumsy way to get around to make things work..
I don't concur with you on thing you mentioned below in the first paragraph. If you factor interoperability & infrastructure issues
Vishal,
A SOAP runtime system should provide a layer of
abstraction between your message format and the application that implements the
service. Hence the format of the message (Doc/literal vs RPC/encoded) shouldn't
really impact the design of your service. The SOAP runtime system should be
Thanks Scott. Do you happen to have a code snippet that uses a validating parser to parse and validate a document pulled out from a SOAP body ? I don't want to interrogate body entries vector, get each element pulled out from the vector and then perform coarse-grained validation...
VSScott Nichol
Always report exceptions using the SOAP Fault mechanism.
Whether the document is validated against a schema is up to you.
There is no requirement that this be done.
On 17 Jun 2003 at 7:59, Vishal Shah wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've a couple of design questions...I've a Doc/literal style service..
>
30 matches
Mail list logo