So can you leave the fault handler on the service and not user the ones on the operations? Or point those to some dummy handler?
Tracy ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 3:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [flexcoders] Re: WebService operation faults propigating up to WebService fault handler. Hmmm...interesting. I got into the Responders/AsyncTokens because that's how all the Cairngorm samples were setup. But with what you say, it's very consistent with all the samples using MXML WebServices...putting a fault on the operation. But with faults on the operation, what happens when Flex can't even call the operation because of a SOAPEncoder error? Originally, all was fine with using Responders, but then I noticed that errors from the SOAPEncoder were getting swallowed, and when Flex tried building a SOAP message, but couldn't because of some improper format, nothing would happen. It would sit there. Adding an error handler to the actual service solved that. Now, however, I'm stuck with Responder's handling faults, and the actual WebService handling faults. I'd like to at least not have the Web Service fault trigger if the responder handled it. I'm about 12 Web Services, 140+ calls into this thing. I don't think it'll be possible for me to get rid of my Responder cairngorm infrastructure...but I'd like to at least get a handle on how/where the faults are raised from. Had I done this again, I'd probably take your approach of having a single handler, use that as the master that subs things out depending upon the type of response. This would have the benefit of a single point in dealing with the Flex services layer... --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Tracy Spratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do you need the fault handler on the operation? I typically a single > fault handler for all operations. I also use a single handler for all > results as well, actually. I don't like using responders. > > > > Tracy > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> ] On > Behalf Of Todd > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 12:37 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: WebService operation faults propigating up to > WebService fault handler. > > > > I'll bounce this back up as it's hard to find any source code samples > using the Actionscript version of WebService, and properly handling > all the different errors, etc... > > Thanks, > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > , "Todd" <tprekaski@> wrote: > > > > Hello All, > > I have a problem that I can't figure out. With WebService faults, > > and operations that return SOAPFaults...read on for the detais. > > > > 1) I've created my WebService through ActionScript (not the MXML > > Component). > > var ws:WebService = new WebService(); > > > > 2) I've attached a fault listener to it. I had to do this because > > it seems that SOAPEncoder errors were never being caught otherwise. > > ws.addEventListener(FaultEvent.FAULT, onServiceFault) > > > > 3) I'm using a Cairngorm Command/ServiceDelegate calling scheme. > > For example, to call getInvoices, I have a command that calls into the > > appropriate method on the ServiceDelegate called getInvoices, which > > looks like: > > public function getInvoices(params:Object):void{ > > Operation(ws.SearchInvoices).encoder.strictNillability = true; > > var token:AsyncToken = ws.SearchInvoices(params); > > token.addResponder(this.responder); > > } > > > > As you can see, I'm using the AsyncToken, and adding the Commmand as > > the responder. The Command has both fault and result handlers as > > defined by the IResponder interface. > > > > 4) The this.responder is set during the contstructor of the > > Service Delegate, like so: > > public function ServiceDelegate(responder:IResponder) > > { > > this.responder = responder; > > } > > > > So, now my problem is, that when a SOAPFault is raised in the call to > > the SearchInvoices WebService operation, both the FAULT on my Command > > (which is the responder), AND the fault (onServiceFault ) for the > > WebService definition. > > > > I'd really rather not have this happen, but can't really figure out > > exactly what's going on. ALSO, I had to add the fault handler to the > > WebService because we were having all sorts of SOAPEncoder errors that > > were never being raised. > > > > What's someone to do? Is it that since I'm using the AsyncResponder > > to handle for the result/fault, that the WebService is never notified > > that the Fault has already been handled? What's the proper design > > around this? Is there a way to set the status that the Fault's been > > handled? It almost seems like the fault is being raised twice. > > > > Thanks, > > Todd > > >
