Can you tell me the sizes of the 2 war files?
Also, with the xml sniffer, do you see the same version of the XML
schema namespace for xmlns:xsd="..."?
On 3 Jun 2003 at 11:59, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> Scott,
> Excellent news - this was defiantely a version issue. I've just made doubly sure
> and the version of the soap war files "are different".
>
> Interestly the latest version causes this error whereas the older version does not.
>
> Scott again thanks for all your help and your continual support of this newsgroup.
>
> Kind Regard
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> Scott Nichol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the value being serialized is really null and you have the same
> version of Apache SOAP on the deployment server as the development, I
> would expect things to work.
>
> It is true that null values can be deserialized. This should be true
> for beans you've mapped and ones you have not (ur-type). Given the
> errors you have, though, it does not seem that a null is really being
> serialized. For example
>
> Can't yet deserialize non-null Objects;
>
> is an error that comes up only when you have xsi:type="xsd:ur-type"
> without xsi:null="true" or xsi:nil="true".
>
> This makes me wonder whether you really have a null value you are
> returning, and whether you are using the same version of Apache SOAP
> in deployment (because handling of xsi:null and xsi:nil has been
> improved along the way).
>
> On 2 Jun 2003 at 16:03, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>
> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > I have 2 applications using a number of Value Objects. One of these is a Web
> > Service. In the Web Service implementation the Timestamp is in one of the Value
> > Objects however its value is nver set, and always null. On my development server
> > this seems to work fine and seems to deal with it
> (maybe false comfort).
> >
> > This is the same scenario on the deployment Server, however here it seems to fail.
> > It's as if its denomination xsi:null="true", is sufficent to allow it through the
> > soap system, i.e. since it is always null, soap has never attempted to try and
> > deserialize it.
> >
> > Hope this makes sense.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > Scott Nichol wrote:
> > I don't see how it could ever work, unless some version of
> > java.sql.Timestamp has a default ctor. The following code in
> > BeanSerializer creates the bean:
> >
> > private Object instantiateBean(Class javaType)
> > throws IllegalArgumentException
> > {
> > try
> > {
> > return javaType.newInstance();
> > }
> > catch (Throwable t)
> > {
> > throw new IllegalArgumentException("Unable to instantiate '" +
> >
> > StringUtils.getClassName(javaType) +
> > "': " + t.getMessage());
> > }
> > }
> >
> > The newInstance is only going to work if the class has a default ctor
> > (or in Sun's terminology, a "nullary constructor").
> >
> > On 2 Jun 2003 at 15:14, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > HI Scott,
> > >
> > > I thought I'd got around this by declaring the java.sql.Timestamp as a class in
> > > the xml file and loaded it with all the other classes. This seems to be fine on
> > > my machine but not on a deployment server. Could it be a class problem?
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > Scott Nichol wrote:
> > > java.sql.Timestamp does not have a default constructor, which Apache
> > > SOAP requires for instantiation. An alternative for you would be to
> > > return a java.util.Date, which Apache SOAP knows how to serialize and
> > > de-serialize.
> > >
> > > On 2 Jun 2003 at 10:54, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > I'm getting the following errors on the response from the soap server :
> > > >
> > > > on the
> > > > r = c.invoke ( new URL( mstrHostString + "/soap/servlet/rpcrouter"), "" );
> > > > call
> > > > where Response r;
> > > > and Call c;
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Error report :
> > > > 1. If information exists and is returned :
> > > >
> > > > Unable to instantiate 'java.sql.Timestamp': java.sql.Timestamp
> > > >
> > > > You chose fetchAccountUsingAccountNo 10015301
> > > >
> > > > Exception = [SOAPException: faultCode=SOAP-ENV:Client; msg=Unable to
> > > > instantiate 'java.sql.Timestamp': java.sql.Timestamp;
> > > > targetException=java.lang.IllegalAr
> > > >
> > > > gumentException: Unable to instantiate 'java.sql.Timestamp':
> > > > java.sql.Timestamp].
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 2. If no information:
> > > >
> > > > Exception = [SOAPException: faultCode=SOAP-ENV:Client; msg=
> > > >
> > > > Can't yet deserialize non-null Objects;
> > > >
> > > > targetException=java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Can't yet deserialize
> > > > non-null Objects]
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Isssues :
> > > >
> > > > 1. I'm aware of problems with the timestamp and have set it up in the client
> > > > side thus have named it explicitly :
> > > >
> > > > QName qn9 = new QName("urn:xml-IVR-App", "java.sql.Timestamp");
> > > > //map the type
> > > > smr.mapTypes(Constants.NS_URI_SOAP_ENC, qn9, java.sql.Timestamp.class, bsr,
> > > > bsr);
> > > > //telling the call object to use this mapping
> > > > c.setSOAPMappingRegistry(smr);
> > > >
> > > > 2. and the xml
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > xmlns:x="urn:xml-IVR-App"
> > > >
> > > > qname="x:java.sql.Timestamp"
> > > >
> > > > javaType="java.sql.Timestamp"
> > > >
> > > > java2XMLClassName="org.apache.soap.encoding.soapenc.BeanSerializer"
> > > >
> > > > xml2JavaClassName="org.apache.soap.encoding.soapenc.BeanSerializer"
> > > >
> > > > />
> > > >
> > > > 3. Wierder - this works on the development machine but not on the stand-alone
> > > > Test Server.
> > > >
> > > > Any help would be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott Nichol
> > >
> > > Do not reply directly to this e-mail address,
> > > as it is filtered to only receive e-mail from
> > > specific mailing lists.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
> > >
> >
> >
> > Scott Nichol
> >
> > Do not reply directly to this e-mail address,
> > as it is filtered to only receive e-mail from
> > specific mailing lists.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
> >
>
>
> Scott Nichol
>
> Do not reply directly to this e-mail address,
> as it is filtered to only receive e-mail from
> specific mailing lists.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
>
Scott Nichol
Do not reply directly to this e-mail address,
as it is filtered to only receive e-mail from
specific mailing lists.
