Anne: Thanks for your interest.
I had solved it. I modified my input.xsd, i defined my input (that has a
choice) as a complextype and then different elements of that type, each one
for each operation.
Greetings.
Julio César.
From: "Anne Thomas Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: AXIS1x bug: 2+ operations with same input/output
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:05:28 -0400
Method overloading should not be exposed through your WSDL interface. You
should define a unique operation name and a unique input message for each
operation. If your service implementation uses method overloading, that's
fine -- but you need to provide an abstraction layer between your WSDL
interface and the service implementation.
The SOAP specification requires that each operation has a unique signature.
(well, technically, it's not required by SOAP 1.1, but it is required by
WS-I Basic Profile and SOAP 1.2. In any case, most SOAP implementations
don't support it.)
Anne
On 6/5/06, Julio César Pérez Arques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for your response.
>
>It's not a bug. Each operation must have a unique signature (defined as
the
>qname of the child element of the <soapenv:Body> element).
I think this is a strong limitation.
Then, how can i get methods overloading?
Why is not soapaction used?
Is it the same for Axis2?
Greetings.
Julio César.
>From: "Anne Thomas Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
>To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
>Subject: Re: AXIS1x bug: 2+ operations with same input/output
>Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 17:36:43 -0400
>
>It's not a bug. Each operation must have a unique signature (defined as
the
>qname of the child element of the <soapenv:Body> element).
>
>Anne
>
>On 6/3/06, Julio César Pérez Arques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Hello boyz.
>>
>>I am developing a axis ws that has 2 operations with same input/output.
I
>>use axis 1.4 and wsdl2java.
>>But always 1st operation is executed, never the 2nd one.
>>
>>I have read in axis mailing lists it is a bug. Is this correct?
>>I always have read a possible solution in by a user. It dates from
March
>>2006.
>>
>>Is this bug going to fix?
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>>Julio César.
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
