Hi Andrei,
I'm not sending, I'm receiving this invalid fault. I just wanted to be
sure my understanding of the basic rules are correct. Here is my
assumption:
It is illegal to send back a response that is not according to the
output message format defined in the WSDL for an operation, even when
there is a Fault.
Is that statement correct? Or is there a "relaxed checking" mode
whereby the WS implementation (cxf, in this case) will allow message
types other than those specified in the WSDL.
Thanks,
David
On 03/23/2012 12:01 PM, Andrei Shakirin wrote:
Hi David,
It seems that your response doesn't fit to XML schema specified for WSDL fault.
Can you attach your wsdl and code snapshot how you send the Fault?
Regards,
Andrei.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Mansfield [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 23 March 2012 16:31
To: [email protected]
Subject: stupid soap fault question
Hi All:
I'm using CXF 2.5.2 for a web-service client. In certain scenarios I can
generate a Fault response from the service I'm accessing, however the actual
response cannot be processed as it fails the validation/unmarshal with:
Caused by: javax.xml.bind.UnmarshalException: unexpected element
(uri:"http://xxx.com/XXX/Service/2009-11-06";, local:"messageHeader").
Expected elements are<{}return>
I believe they are in the wrong, because the actual content is indeed bad.
What they are sending me is the soap:body from _my request_ with their fault
element appended.
The response parser is expecting a valid response message as per the wsdl / xml
schema.
Is there something wrong with my understanding of how fault's should be
handled? Are they on crack?
Thanks,
David Mansfield
Cobite, INC.
