Re: No such operation

[Doug B]

I'm also discovering that my Axis customer is having to do some intermediate step where he generates code from our WSDL but can't find any deployable artifacts until he takes some "other steps", at which point he has to re-specify several options, including... style, encoding, SOAP Action.  So far,  none of those were set correctly and his ?wsdl didn't even match the "contract" WSDL in those crucial parameters.  Will be testing soon with hopefully the correct values specified there.

(I have no details at all on my .NET customer's environment, so it's also possible he had to do some tweaking himself.)

Doug

On 6/26/06, Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Not quite. Axis does not assume that you are using wrapped. Axis is reading the Qname of the incoming SOAP body and trying to map it to a known operation. Because you have not explicitly specified that the incoming "doi:SuccessfulCompletionRequest" QName maps to the method "SuccessfulCompletionOperation", Axis doesn't know how to handle the request and returns an error of "No such operation".

You haven't supplied any information about the .NET environment, so I can't tell you why it miraculously worked.

Anne

On 6/26/06, Doug B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Thanks again (you too, Jeff).  I'm starting to understand, but bear with me.  Your article was helpful, but I'm still left wondering about a few things.

Namely, I'd have to change my WSDL to support "wrapped", whether or not I'm going to actually use it on either side, right?  I have to use particular naming conventions.  And Axis seems to be assuming that I've done so.  Again, strangely enough, my .NET customer's environment did not make this assumption. 

Or is Axis' operation name expectation completely unrelated to the "wrapped" convention?  Maybe that's the real issue, and *that* seems like something the WS-I would need to address.  i.e. whether a request element name should match its operation name to be able to be easily looked up.

Doug

On 6/26/06, Anne Thomas Manes < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Doug,

"Wrapped" is a WSDL design convention that helps tools simulate an RPC-like programming interface. The WS-I BP doesn't address language binding issues, therefore "wrapped" versus "unwrapped" is out of scope for the WS-I BP.

.NET generates "wrapped" interfaces by default. The JAX-RPC spec defines the "wrapped" convention for Java. I've also provided a summary of the convention here:

http://atmanes.blogspot.com/2005/03/wrapped-documentliteral-convention.html

Anne

<snip>