[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-2246?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Amila Chinthaka Suriarachchi resolved AXIS2-2246. ------------------------------------------------- Resolution: Fixed make part name unqualifed. so nonamespace associated with the part name. > Rpc-Literal Client and Server adb codegen create messages that are non WS-I > complient > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: AXIS2-2246 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-2246 > Project: Axis 2.0 (Axis2) > Issue Type: Bug > Components: adb > Affects Versions: 1.1.1 > Environment: Axis 1.5, Tomcat 5.5, Axis2 1.1.1, Axis2 Eclipse codegen > plugin 1.1.1, Eclipse 3.2, WTP 1.5.1, Windows 2003 server > Reporter: Tim Buss > Priority: Critical > Attachments: Axis2RPCLiteralTest.wsdl > > > There appears to be two problems. The most obvious is that the RPC-literal > message sent by the generated client and accepted by the generated service is > incorrect . The following message body is sent for the various test cases I > have tried - string, complex type, nested complex type. > <soapenv:Body> > <ns:OperationName> > <ns:PartName> > .............content..... > </ns:PartName> > </ns:OperationName> > </soapenv:Body> > but it should be: > <soapenv:Body> > <ns:OperationName> > <PartName> > .............content..... > </PartName> > </ns:OperationName> > </soapenv:Body> > PartName should be a non qualified name. Axis 1.3 did it this way, and other > sources support this as being the correct form for rpc-literal. In > particualr WS-I Basic 1.0 states: > "4.7.20 Part Accessors > For rpc-literal envelopes, WSDL 1.1 is not clear what namespace, if any, the > accessor elements for parameters and return value are a part of. Different > implementations make different choices, leading to interoperability problems. > R2735 An ENVELOPE described with an rpc-literal binding MUST place the part > accessor elements for parameters and return value in no namespace. > R2755 The part accessor elements in a MESSAGE described with an rpc-literal > binding MUST have a local name of the same value as the name attribute of the > corresponding wsdl:part element. > Settling on one alternative is crucial to achieving interoperability. The > Profile places the part accessor elements in no namespace as doing so is > simple, covers all cases, and does not lead to logical inconsistency. " > http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.2.html > The second problem that I have yet to narrow down is that with a much more > complex type, the generated client sends a message with a body like this > where the "part" element is not present: > <soapenv:Body> > <ns:OperationName> > .............content..... > </ns:OperationName> > </soapenv:Body> > One other difference that may be a factor in this case is that my complex > service is one way. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]