On Mon April 20 2009 5:45:33 am Thomas Sauzedde wrote: > Daniel Kulp a écrit : > > On Fri April 17 2009 6:11:06 am Thomas Sauzedde wrote: > >> Hi everybody, > >> > >> I'm writing a CXF client for a .NET SOAP server and I'm in front of the > >> following issue. > >> I need to use MTOM but the server goes mad with my MTOM requests. > > > > Hmm.... what version of .NET? We've tested this several times before > > without any issues. > > I'm sorry but I don't have the answer ... > Because of a kind of NDA, I must be quite vague but this is a SOAP based > IM service and we are hosting a client gateway. > The server is out of our control :-( > > If you know something to do on the client side that can help to > determine this, I can try .... > > What I have done last week is my own AttachmentOutInterceptor that call > a customized AttachmentUtil and AttachmentSerializer. > This interceptor register itself as a replacement for the "official" > AttachmentOutInterceptor ...(id = AttachmentOutInterceptor.class.getName()) > > Like this, it is working, but could you tell me if this is this the best > way to do ?
Probably. Cannot really think of another way to do it. I'm really surprised that the quoted stuff is an issue. More likely, it's the ---- at the start. It's possible that the change to uuid that I did on friday will fix your issue anyway. I checked Metro and metro also quotes the boundary. That's why I'm quite surprised if that really is the issue. Dan > > > That said, I really don't like our boundary format. The = in there > > really does suck and definitely would cause issues. Having it start > > with --- also is not good. I've poked around a bit and I'm testing a > > change to make it a uuid. It would still be quoted (as per spec, that > > should be there), but it would look more like: > > > > boundary="uuid:e9c5f300-b0ed-4a72-b2b0-9a738e26e0a7" > > > > I'll get that committed to trunk shortly. > > > > Dan > > I'm going to see if a bug request could be opened for the quoted > boundary name on the server side, but IMHO this is going to be rejected :-( > > Thanks > > -- > Tom -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
