oops, never mind...must be working too hard. I read the code wrong. No
bug.
Nadir K. Amra
Nadir Amra/Rochester/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/22/2006 08:18:34 PM:
> I am looking at how fault handling is done, and I see that we generate
> code like the following (using FaultMappingDoc test case) when the
> CmplxFaultName does not match:
>
> else
> {
> const char *detail =
> pSoapFault->getSimpleFaultDetail();
> bool deleteDetail=false;
>
> if (NULL==detail || 0==strlen(detail))
> {
> detail=m_pCall->getFaultAsXMLString();
>
> if (NULL==detail)
> detail="";
> else
> deleteDetail=true;
> }
>
> OtherFaultException
> ofe(pSoapFault->getFaultcode(),
> pSoapFault->getFaultstring(),
> pSoapFault->getFaultactor(),
> detail, iExceptionCode);
>
> if (deleteDetail && NULL!=detail)
> Axis::AxisDelete( (void *)
> const_cast<char*>(detail), XSD_STRING);
>
> m_pCall->unInitialize();
> delete pSoapFault;
> throw ofe;
> }
>
> My question is whether the call to AxisDelete is a bug, since from what
I
> can tell getSimpleFaultDetail() does not return a new pointer.
>
> Nadir K. Amra
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
