Hi all,

I'm stuck with some strange issue about envelope deserialization when performing in-only operations. I have to access the SOAPEnvelope from within the ServiceSkeleton implementation class. The envelope contained in the MessageContext is non-null and it seems to be valid because XMLBeans parameter is correct. Nevertheless if I call toString () method on the envelope object an OMException, caused by a NoSuchElementException is thrown. I also tried to convert the envelope to an org.w3c.dom.Element but calling toString on this object I receive a RuntimeException with message 'Can not serialize OM Element Envelope', caused by a XMLStreamException. This phenomenon looks rather strange to me because this is only true for in-only operations and XMLBeans CAN build a valid object from the SOAPBody in any case. Furthermore the envelope of in-out operations is all valid.

I use Axis2 1.4.1 on top of Tomcat 6.0.14 and generate the service client and server classes from WSDL 1.1 using WSDL2Java and XMLBeans 2.3.0.

I found some issues about deserialization of the envelope. Could there be any relation? Does anyone have a clue what could solve this issue since I already posted on axis-user but nobody could help me there and I need a solution to finish my current work. Therefore any help is very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Martin



PS:
Two additional questions:

- I'm wondering why WSDL2Java generates a service.xml which states that the MEP for in-only operations is "robust-in-only" since I'm using WSDL1.1 and as far as I know WSDL1.1 is not capable of that?!? Am I wrong with that? - I'm also wondering why the AbstractRobustInOnlyMessageReceiver and the AbstractInOutSyncMessageReceiver is used for robust-in-only and in-out mep, respectively, since both are deprecated? But this seems to be not that much of an issue...

PPS:
If you miss any information please let me know.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to