And a dumb question: I assume that this is just as visible in SOAPui as it is in WireShark.
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron, > > I think you might have slightly misread me. What I meant to say was, > 'sorry, I didn't see that you posted those logs or I would have looked > at this again sooner.' > > I will be trying again to make a repro for this inside the CXF test > framework that will permit me or someone to track this down. > > --benson > > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Ron Grimes <[email protected]> wrote: >> Benson, >> >> I have attached a wireshark dump to the JIRA at >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1956 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1956> . It isolates the packet >> in question and should show conclusively that the problem is how CXF is >> generating the SOAP envelope. Please note that this was run on the Tomcat >> server and shows the response from the server address (10.0.8.13) to my >> client address (75....). If you open the ws_dump_20090221.pcap file and >> navigate to the Packet Details panel, and then expand the "extensible Markup >> Language" node, you will notice how it shows a "[ ERROR: Unrecognized text ] >> " after the id node. >> >> The funny thing is, as I originally reported, it generally returns this >> exact same data correctly on the first web service request, but somehow >> screws it up on the second, third, etc. I do notice that, in this case, the >> garbage is appended after the id node, which would be the GuestCommentId >> entity in relation to the GuestComment entity. Because it sometimes returns >> this exact same record just fine, and other times not, it rules out that the >> node element genuinely contains bad data within the database. >> >> Please let me know if I can provide anything further to verify that this is >> a CXF problem or not. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ron Grimes >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sat 2/21/2009 12:20 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: CXF 2.1 to CXF 2.2 >> >> >> >> Ron, >> >> I missed your last addition to this bug offering concrete evidence. >> Somehow we have to come up with a reproduction of this that we can >> work with. >> >> --benson >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Ron Grimes <[email protected]> wrote: >>> If you're going to develop with Flex and CXF, there are some very quirky >>> features you should be aware of: >>> >>> 1). Sometimes it helps to define your resultFormat to use "xml" instead of >>> "e4x". See >>> http://www.flexer.info/2008/09/10/httpservice-requesting-xml-from-feedburner-gets-parsed-with-xsl-in-ie-browser/ >>> >>> 2) Marshalling XML to the Flex/Flash client can be problematic if the HTTP >>> response headers contain No-Cache. See >>> http://faindu.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/ie7-ssl-xml-flex-error-2032-stream-error/ >>> >>> 3) Apache CXF sometimes returns garbage at the end of the SOAP envelope, >>> which causes a fault in Flex. See my JIRA entry at >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1956 . I was able prove, via the >>> Jira incident's WireShark attachments, that its the Spring/Apache CXF web >>> service returning the garbage, but it remains unaddressed. I hope they >>> solve it soon. To solve this, I had to put some "fix-it" logic in the Flex >>> fault method to strip out the garbage and re-process just the SOAP envelope. >>> >>> Hope something here is helpful. >>> >>> Ron Grimes >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: charlie [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Sat 2/21/2009 3:54 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: CXF 2.1 to CXF 2.2 >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have upgarded from 2.1.3 -> 2.2-SNAPSHOT as I need the multipart/form-data >>> stuff. I have a flex client that runs in different browser calling these >>> endpoints. Since the upgrade some of the endpoints have stopped working for >>> the flex client. It was throwing a parseing exception. So i looked at the >>> XML. From Internet Explorer and Safari I get this: >>> {"Response":{"expiryDate":1235157506359,"passwordHash":"5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99","roleId":3,"securityToken":"<?xml >>> version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"UTF-8\" ?><TOKEN >>> TYPE=\"2\"><PUBLIC><MEMBER-ID>0<\/MEMBER-ID> >>> <NAME>test<\/NAME><HOST>3<\/HOST><EXPIRY-DATE>1235170466370<\/EXPIRY-DATE><\/PUBLIC><CIPHER-TEXT><![CDATA[MNYIeugbGuJ7V1zq9nMm82JTlmiSswJMSokjYI5z9634nPkyJpWgDpuqcg3QkOXZmfCc6BX7m7+togEG4bAFsSggKFgPmlm+nefFLhZ8EOofmSTq\/or0wrMar3WA1WlbZGkGZOjl6A+6v9oSONvsdJW4PLP7Lk06iwwIeZdbFXmeKSWxdonCXw==]]><\/CIPHER-TEXT><\/TOKEN>","status":"OK"}} >>> >>> But is correct in Firefox: >>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" >>> standalone="yes"?><Response><expiryDate>1235157552986</expiryDate><passwordHash>5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99</passwordHash><roleId>3</roleId><securityToken><?xml >>> version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?><TOKEN >>> TYPE="2"><PUBLIC><MEMBER-ID>0</MEMBER-ID> >>> <NAME>test</NAME><HOST>3</HOST><EXPIRY-DATE>1235170512998</EXPIRY-DATE></PUBLIC><CIPHER-TEXT><![CDATA[MNYIeugbGuJ7V1zq9nMm82JTlmiSswJMSokjYI5z962n6dp9vkO/Kf51/hIjtDzPmfCc6BX7m7+togEG4bAFsSggKFgPmlm+nefFLhZ8EOofmSTq/or0wrMar3WA1WlbZGkGZOjl6A+6v9oSONvsdJW4PLP7Lk06iwwIeZdbFXmeKSWxdonCXw==]]></CIPHER-TEXT></TOKEN></securityToken><status>OK</status></Response> >>> >>> It Almost seems like the browser have transform the data. Is there any thing >>> I need to do to instruct the marshalling in 2.2? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Charlie >>> >>> -- >>> http://finker.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
