You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@cxf.apache.org by "Daniel Kulp (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2009/10/19 23:10:59 UTC
[jira] Resolved: (CXF-2478) Incorrectly removing a parameter from
the Message
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2478?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Daniel Kulp resolved CXF-2478.
------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 2.2.5
2.1.8
Assignee: Daniel Kulp
> Incorrectly removing a parameter from the Message
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CXF-2478
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2478
> Project: CXF
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core, JAX-WS Runtime, Service Model, Soap Binding
> Affects Versions: 2.2.3, 2.1.7, 2.2.4
> Environment: Tomcat 6.0.18, Windows Server 2003. CXF 2.2.4.
> Reporter: Bozhidar Bozhanov
> Assignee: Daniel Kulp
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 2.1.8, 2.2.5
>
> Attachments: roc_remedy_service.wsdl, SOAPMessage.txt
>
>
> I've been having the following issue for a whole day already, and I'm debugging it: http://www.coderanch.com/t/466933/Web-Services/java/CXF-fails-serve-WebService
> I've got further ahead:
> in WrapperClassInInterceptor there is this code:
> (line 135 onwards)
> newParams = new MessageContentsList(helper.getWrapperParts(wrappedObject));
> List<Integer> removes = null;
> int count = 0;
> for (MessagePartInfo part : messageInfo.getMessageParts()) {
> if (Boolean.TRUE.equals(part.getProperty("messagepart.isheader"))) {
> MessagePartInfo mpi = wrappedMessageInfo.getMessagePart(part
> .getName());
> if (lst.hasValue(mpi)) {
> newParams.put(part, lst.get(mpi));
> } else if (mpi.getTypeClass() == null) {
> if (removes == null) {
> removes = new ArrayList();
> }
> removes.add(Integer.valueOf(mpi.getIndex()));
> }
> } else {
> ++count;
> }
> }
> The parameters in "newParams" before the removes are removed are the correct params + one null at the end.
> Then index "1" is removed. BUT the param at Index 1 is correct. So perhaps the index is wrongly calculated. I don't have any more time to dig further into the generation of the index, so I'm just patching my version by commenting-out the removal part. I hope you can give me an update no this. Thanks
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.