CXF is definitely wrong. The element is not minOccurs=0. Thus, the element needs to be there with the xsi:nil="true" flag set. Can you please log a bug? A testcase would be good. A patch is even better. :-)
Dan On Monday 10 September 2007, Jeff.Yu wrote: > Hi, > > These days I am doing the inter-operation with WCF , and I have found > an issue about SOAP message that CXF did is different from what WCF > did. > > For example, the request message element is: > > <xs:element name="inList" nillable="true" type="q3:ArrayOfstring"/> > > then if we pass the null value to it, and then invoke the method. > > CXF would send the SOAP message like: > > -------------------------------------- > <soap:Envelope > xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/";><soap:Body></so >ap:Body></soap:Envelope> -------------------------------------- > > In this situation, the server can't find the accordingly server-side > method, so it will throw a Fault to client. > > but for WCF, the client would send SOAP message like: > ----------------------------------------------------------- > <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/";> > <s:Body><inList > xmlns:d3p1="http://schemas.microsoft.com/2003/10/Serialization/Arrays"; > i:nil="true" xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; > xmlns="http://tempuri.org/"; /></s:Body> > </soap:Envelop> > ---------------------------------------------------- > > I am not sure which way is better to go? In my example, It is the > Document/Literal Bare mode, does anyone know that this scenario is > against the WS-I BP, I haven't found a rule in the WS-I BP about this > yet. > > Thanks > Jeff -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
