[JBoss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: JBossWS 1.0 vs. Axis 1.3

2006-05-10 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is a general design desission that we made. JBossWS won't consume illegal SOAP messages from SOAP stack X. Axis has been more lenient WRT that, but recent interop tests actually check for strict behaviour. With the current implementation, the message would have to be fixed out of scope.

[JBoss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: JBossWS 1.0 vs. Axis 1.3

2006-05-10 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In future, you will have control over the first point of contact for message preprocessing and other dirty tricks http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBWS-930 View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=3942458#3942458 Reply to the post :

[JBoss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: JBossWS 1.0 vs. Axis 1.3

2006-05-09 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are two issues here #1 your message is not valid according to the wsdl. long_1 should indeed not be namespace qualified #2 rpc/encoded is not allowed according to hte BasicProfile-1.0 - you can use rpc/literal instead. View the original post :

[JBoss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: JBossWS 1.0 vs. Axis 1.3

2006-05-09 Thread burrsutter
I have been trying to work my way through this as well. The problem is in the namespace prefix on the parameter. JBossWS expects: long_1100.0/long_1 instead of SOAPSDK4:long_1/SOAPSDK4:long_1 which is produced by the the MS Toolkit. I have been testing with the 3.x version of the Toolkit.