Return-Path: 
 <axis-dev-return-59406-apmail-ws-axis-dev-archive=ws.apache.org@ws.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-ws-axis-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 35026 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2007 11:29:39 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Apr 2007 11:29:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 27850 invoked by uid 500); 17 Apr 2007 11:29:42 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-ws-axis-dev-archive@ws.apache.org
Received: (qmail 27802 invoked by uid 500); 17 Apr 2007 11:29:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
list-help: <mailto:axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:axis-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:axis-dev@ws.apache.org>
List-Id: <axis-dev.ws.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Received: (qmail 27791 invoked by uid 99); 17 Apr 2007 11:29:42 -0000
Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:29:42 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-100.0 required=10.0
	tests=ALL_TRUSTED
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received: from [140.211.11.4] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.4)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:29:35 -0700
Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52210714057
	for <axis-dev@ws.apache.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5967476.1176809355297.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Amila Chinthaka Suriarachchi (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (AXIS2-2246) Rpc-Literal Client and Server adb
 codegen create messages that are non WS-I complient
In-Reply-To: <28591983.1172214365497.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-2246?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12489370 ] 

Amila Chinthaka Suriarachchi commented on AXIS2-2246:
-----------------------------------------------------

I did not fixed it for 1.1.1 SNAPSHOT. it should be either axis2 trunk (axis2-SNAPSHOT) or axis2 1.2 branch (axis2-1.2-SNAPSHOT). Please have a look at with the RC2.

> 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: axis-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org