You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to java-user@axis.apache.org by Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com> on 2007/04/01 07:56:09 UTC
Re: wsdl message with no parts
Hi Anne
thanks for the clarification. I am wondering if what you said for RPC type
is also valid for the wrapped doc-lit type too [which kind of similar to rpc
literal type and which is followed by .Net]. I mean if a pojo service method
signature reads --
public void test(String s)
The response wsdl message will have a part element like ---
<message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
<part name="output" element="myns:testResponse/>
</message>
-right? as opposed to having no part defined like ----
<message name="wsns:testTesponseMessage">
</message>
I am generating the service wsdl on my own and am integrating to .Net
paltform [.Net is the client]. Since .Net seems to be following the wrapped
doc-lit style do you think I should generate the wsdl response message with
a non-empty part as shown above [even though the pojo method has void
return type]
This will imply that for a request response kind of web service we allways
need to have a response message with one part element to be compliant with
.Net? That seems little to harsh for me as I didnt find any such requirement
in BP 1.1 OR this is something that is introduced just because of .Net?
thanks
Rishi
On 3/31/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It depends on the style.
>
> If you are using document style, an empty message declaration with no
> parts (either input or output) will generate an empty SOAP body.
>
> If you are using rpc style, an empty input message declaration will
> generate a SOAP body containing an element that has a local name equal
> to the operation name in the namespace specified in the <soap:body>
> declaration in the binding. An empty output message declaration will
> generate a SOAP body containing an element representing the response
> value (in this case, void). The name of the response element is not
> significant, but by convention it has a local name constructed from
> the operation name appended with "Response" and it is in the namespace
> specified in the <soap:body> declaration.
>
> Anne
>
> On 3/30/07, Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also just wanted to show what the TCP monitor is howing for the response
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > <soapenv:Envelope
> > xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
> > xmlns:xsd=" http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
> > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
> > <soapenv:Body/>
> > </soapenv:Envelope>
> >
> >
> > So the body elemet is empty and the wsdl snippet is below:
> >
> >
> > <message name="AddrMessage">
> > <part name="input" element="inx:Address" />
> > </message>
> > <message name="AddrMessageResponse" />
> > <portType name="AddrPortType">
> > <operation name="processAddr">
> > <input message="inws:AddrMessage" />
> > <output message="inws:AddrMessageResponse" />
> > </operation>
> > </portType>
> >
> > Note the AddrMessageResponse definition - thats empty too. So can I
> conclude
> > that an empty wsdl"message definition would imply a empty soap body
> element
> > in wire?
> >
> > thanks
> > Rishi
> >
> > On 3/30/07, Amila Suriarachchi <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/29/07, Rishi krish <rishikrrish@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi All
> > > > This is probably a generic wsdl question - I will be using a the
> Axis2
> > serviceclient api to call a web service which has a wsdl operation [with
> > http binding] the outpout of which refers to a wsdl:message which has no
> > parts defined. I am wondering what that means for the service response?
> > >
> > >
> > > http binding has not clearly defined in wsdl 1.1. so if you deal with
> http
> > bindings better to use WSDL 2.0
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > A>the response would be an empty soap body
> > >
> > >
> > > if you use http binding you would not get any soap messages. So we can
> > throw this option.
> > > Actually this is the case if you have above serario with a
> > document/literal binding.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > B>The response would be just an http response with no trace of soap.
> [no
> > soap envelope]
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this should be the case. the problem here is that wsdl 1.1spec
> > does not clearly specify whether we have to use the rpc type message
> > construction or document type message construction with http binding.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can anyone pls confirm what should be the response if the
> service/soap
> > engine is behaving correctly?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > thanks
> > > > Rishi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Amila Suriarachchi,
> > > WSO2 Inc.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > thanks
> > Rishi
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
thanks
Rishi
Re: wsdl message with no parts
Posted by Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com>.
I assume that MXPERSONTinterface is defined in the imported schema.
>From what I see, the WSDL is WS-I BP 1.1 compliant. My assumption is
that the .NET validator has a bug.
Anne
On 4/3/07, Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Anne
> I am attaching the wsdl and the conformance report as well as the monitor
> log which is all based on the c# tool. My request message has a part element
> MXPERSONInterface which appears as child to the soap message and I have a
> void response message [no parts defined] which shows up in the response soap
> message as a soap body having no child elements [just as you had said the
> beahvious should be]. The BP [BP1212]failure note says ::
>
> The content of the soap:Body element is inconsistent with its description.
> The envelope does not contain exactly one part accessor element for each of
> the wsdl:part elements bound to the envelope's corresponding soapbind:body
> element.
>
> Which does not appear from the soap on wire as its first and only child [as
> you would see in the conformance as well as the monitor log] is the element
> [MXPERSONInterface] as pointed by the wsdl:message in the wsdl.
>
> FYI - the java version of the tool for this test says "notApplicable". This
> is happening with the service deployed in Axis 1.0 [not axis2].
>
> thanks
> Rishi
>
>
>
> On 4/2/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > .NET can consume an unwrapped doc/literal service, but it's less
> > convenient for the .NET developer. As a general rule, I recommend that
> > you always follow the wrapped convention.
> >
> > I'm having trouble understanding where the BP 1.1 validator is
> > failing. Could you show us the WSDL (or a similar representation)
> > that's failing?
> >
> > When using doc/literal, your messages may contain at most one body
> > part (which becomes a child of the <soap:body> in the SOAP message). A
> > "part accessor element" refers to the child of the <soap:body>. (In
> > RPC style, the "part accessor elements" refer to children of the
> > auto-generated wrapper element that has the same local name as the
> > operation.) I believe the error is referring to the SOAP message, not
> > to the WSDL.
> >
> > Anne
> >
> > On 4/1/07, Rishi krish < rishikrrish@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Anne
> > > Thanks again for your clarification on .Net requirements. You said
> doc-Lit
> > > wrapped is the default format generated by .Net. Do you imply that if my
> > > axis service is not conforming to doc-lit wrapped format .Net cannot
> > > communicate to it? OR .Net can be configured to communicate with a
> service
> > > which is just doc-lit and not wrapped?
> > > I had downloaded the c# based BP 1.1 validator from WS-I site [I am
> hoping
> > > that this is representative of .Net platform] and have been trying tests
> > > with it. It fails me on BP1212 which implements R2212 which requires:
> > >
> > > An ENVELOPE MUST contain exactly one part accessor element for each of
> the
> > > wsdl:part elements bound to the envelope's corresponding soapbind:body
> > > element.
> > >
> > > My wsdl soapbind:body does not have any part attribute defined - and
> thats
> > > perfectly valid [as per R2210] as I have only one part defined in the
> > > wsdl:message definition. The java BP 1.1 tool says "notApplicable". Is
> this
> > > a bug with the c# BP 1.1 tool or this is a .Net requirement that the
> wsdl
> > > soapbind:body element has to have the part attribute defined.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > Rishi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/1/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > If you have an empty message, then you aren't following the wrapped
> > > > convention. The wrapped convention requires that the input message
> > > > contain an element whose local name is the same as the operation, and
> > > > the output message contain an element whose local name is the
> > > > operation appended with "Response". (Essentially it literally follows
> > > > the RPC convention so that programming frameworks can support an
> > > > RPC-style programming model, yet still implement a doc/literal
> > > > message.)
> > > >
> > > > For your example, to use wrapped doc/literal, you should define the
> > > > response message as:
> > > >
> > > > <message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
> > > > <part name="parameters" element="myns:testResponse/>
> > > > </message>
> > > >
> > > > (.NET further requires that the part name = "parameters")
> > > >
> > > > The wrapped convention was established by .NET. It is the default
> > > > format generated by .NET. The Java community responded in order to
> > > > interoperate more effectively with .NET. The JAX-RPC spec is the only
> > > > formal specification that defines the wrapped convention.
> > > >
> > > > You are under no obligation to support the wrapped convention, but if
> > > > you want to enable interoperability with .NET, you'll find things go
> > > > much more easily if you follow it.
> > > >
> > > > Note that WS-I BP does require that all input messages have a unique
> > > > signature. If you have more than one operations that accept no input,
> > > > you must disambiguate the request messages some way. I always
> > > > recommend following the wrapped convention just because it makes
> > > > things easier.
> > > >
> > > > Anne
> > > >
> > > > On 4/1/07, Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Anne
> > > > > thanks for the clarification. I am wondering if what you said for
> RPC
> > > type
> > > > > is also valid for the wrapped doc-lit type too [which kind of
> similar to
> > > rpc
> > > > > literal type and which is followed by .Net]. I mean if a pojo
> service
> > > method
> > > > > signature reads --
> > > > >
> > > > > public void test(String s)
> > > > >
> > > > > The response wsdl message will have a part element like ---
> > > > >
> > > > > <message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
> > > > > <part name="output" element="myns:testResponse/>
> > > > > </message>
> > > > >
> > > > > -right? as opposed to having no part defined like ----
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <message name="wsns:testTesponseMessage">
> > > > > </message>
> > > > >
> > > > > I am generating the service wsdl on my own and am integrating to
> .Net
> > > > > paltform [.Net is the client]. Since .Net seems to be following the
> > > wrapped
> > > > > doc-lit style do you think I should generate the wsdl response
> message
> > > with
> > > > > a non-empty part as shown above [even though the pojo method has
> void
> > > return
> > > > > type]
> > > > >
> > > > > This will imply that for a request response kind of web service we
> > > allways
> > > > > need to have a response message with one part element to be
> compliant
> > > with
> > > > > .Net? That seems little to harsh for me as I didnt find any such
> > > requirement
> > > > > in BP 1.1 OR this is something that is introduced just because of
> .Net?
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > Rishi
> > > > > On 3/31/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It depends on the style.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you are using document style, an empty message declaration with
> no
> > > > > > parts (either input or output) will generate an empty SOAP body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you are using rpc style, an empty input message declaration
> will
> > > > > > generate a SOAP body containing an element that has a local name
> equal
> > > > > > to the operation name in the namespace specified in the
> <soap:body>
> > > > > > declaration in the binding. An empty output message declaration
> will
> > > > > > generate a SOAP body containing an element representing the
> response
> > > > > > value (in this case, void). The name of the response element is
> not
> > > > > > significant, but by convention it has a local name constructed
> from
> > > > > > the operation name appended with "Response" and it is in the
> namespace
> > > > > > specified in the <soap:body> declaration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/30/07, Rishi krish < rishikrrish@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Also just wanted to show what the TCP monitor is howing for the
> > > response
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > > > > > <soapenv:Envelope
> > > > > > >
> > > > > xmlns:soapenv="
> > > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
> > > > > > > xmlns:xsd=" http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema "
> > > > > > > xmlns:xsi="
> > > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
> > > > > > > <soapenv:Body/>
> > > > > > > </soapenv:Envelope>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So the body elemet is empty and the wsdl snippet is below:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <message name="AddrMessage">
> > > > > > > <part name="input" element="inx:Address" />
> > > > > > > </message>
> > > > > > > <message name="AddrMessageResponse" />
> > > > > > > <portType name="AddrPortType">
> > > > > > > <operation name="processAddr">
> > > > > > > <input message="inws:AddrMessage" />
> > > > > > > <output
> message="inws:AddrMessageResponse" />
> > > > > > > </operation>
> > > > > > > </portType>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note the AddrMessageResponse definition - thats empty too. So
> can I
> > > > > conclude
> > > > > > > that an empty wsdl"message definition would imply a empty soap
> body
> > > > > element
> > > > > > > in wire?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > > Rishi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3/30/07, Amila Suriarachchi < amilasuriarachchi@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 3/29/07, Rishi krish < rishikrrish@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi All
> > > > > > > > > This is probably a generic wsdl question - I will be using a
> the
> > > > > Axis2
> > > > > > > serviceclient api to call a web service which has a wsdl
> operation
> > > [with
> > > > > > > http binding] the outpout of which refers to a wsdl:message
> which
> > > has no
> > > > > > > parts defined. I am wondering what that means for the service
> > > response?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http binding has not clearly defined in wsdl 1.1. so if you
> deal
> > > with
> > > > > http
> > > > > > > bindings better to use WSDL 2.0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A>the response would be an empty soap body
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if you use http binding you would not get any soap messages.
> So we
> > > can
> > > > > > > throw this option.
> > > > > > > > Actually this is the case if you have above serario with a
> > > > > > > document/literal binding.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > B>The response would be just an http response with no trace
> of
> > > soap.
> > > > > [no
> > > > > > > soap envelope]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think this should be the case. the problem here is that
> wsdl
> > > 1.1
> > > > > spec
> > > > > > > does not clearly specify whether we have to use the rpc type
> message
> > > > > > > construction or document type message construction with http
> > > binding.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can anyone pls confirm what should be the response if the
> > > > > service/soap
> > > > > > > engine is behaving correctly?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > > > > Rishi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Amila Suriarachchi,
> > > > > > > > WSO2 Inc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > > Rishi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > Rishi
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > thanks
> > > Rishi
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> thanks
> Rishi
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
Re: wsdl message with no parts
Posted by Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com>.
Hi Anne
I am attaching the wsdl and the conformance report as well as the monitor
log which is all based on the c# tool. My request message has a part element
MXPERSONInterface which appears as child to the soap message and I have a
void response message [no parts defined] which shows up in the response soap
message as a soap body having no child elements [just as you had said the
beahvious should be]. The BP [BP1212]failure note says ::
The content of the soap:Body element is inconsistent with its description.
The envelope does not contain exactly one part accessor element for each of
the wsdl:part elements bound to the envelope's corresponding soapbind:body
element.
Which does not appear from the soap on wire as its first and only child [as
you would see in the conformance as well as the monitor log] is the element
[MXPERSONInterface] as pointed by the wsdl:message in the wsdl.
FYI - the java version of the tool for this test says "notApplicable". This
is happening with the service deployed in Axis 1.0 [not axis2].
thanks
Rishi
On 4/2/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> .NET can consume an unwrapped doc/literal service, but it's less
> convenient for the .NET developer. As a general rule, I recommend that
> you always follow the wrapped convention.
>
> I'm having trouble understanding where the BP 1.1 validator is
> failing. Could you show us the WSDL (or a similar representation)
> that's failing?
>
> When using doc/literal, your messages may contain at most one body
> part (which becomes a child of the <soap:body> in the SOAP message). A
> "part accessor element" refers to the child of the <soap:body>. (In
> RPC style, the "part accessor elements" refer to children of the
> auto-generated wrapper element that has the same local name as the
> operation.) I believe the error is referring to the SOAP message, not
> to the WSDL.
>
> Anne
>
> On 4/1/07, Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Anne
> > Thanks again for your clarification on .Net requirements. You said
> doc-Lit
> > wrapped is the default format generated by .Net. Do you imply that if my
> > axis service is not conforming to doc-lit wrapped format .Net cannot
> > communicate to it? OR .Net can be configured to communicate with a
> service
> > which is just doc-lit and not wrapped?
> > I had downloaded the c# based BP 1.1 validator from WS-I site [I am
> hoping
> > that this is representative of .Net platform] and have been trying tests
> > with it. It fails me on BP1212 which implements R2212 which requires:
> >
> > An ENVELOPE MUST contain exactly one part accessor element for each of
> the
> > wsdl:part elements bound to the envelope's corresponding soapbind:body
> > element.
> >
> > My wsdl soapbind:body does not have any part attribute defined - and
> thats
> > perfectly valid [as per R2210] as I have only one part defined in the
> > wsdl:message definition. The java BP 1.1 tool says "notApplicable". Is
> this
> > a bug with the c# BP 1.1 tool or this is a .Net requirement that the
> wsdl
> > soapbind:body element has to have the part attribute defined.
> >
> > thanks
> > Rishi
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/1/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If you have an empty message, then you aren't following the wrapped
> > > convention. The wrapped convention requires that the input message
> > > contain an element whose local name is the same as the operation, and
> > > the output message contain an element whose local name is the
> > > operation appended with "Response". (Essentially it literally follows
> > > the RPC convention so that programming frameworks can support an
> > > RPC-style programming model, yet still implement a doc/literal
> > > message.)
> > >
> > > For your example, to use wrapped doc/literal, you should define the
> > > response message as:
> > >
> > > <message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
> > > <part name="parameters" element="myns:testResponse/>
> > > </message>
> > >
> > > (.NET further requires that the part name = "parameters")
> > >
> > > The wrapped convention was established by .NET. It is the default
> > > format generated by .NET. The Java community responded in order to
> > > interoperate more effectively with .NET. The JAX-RPC spec is the only
> > > formal specification that defines the wrapped convention.
> > >
> > > You are under no obligation to support the wrapped convention, but if
> > > you want to enable interoperability with .NET, you'll find things go
> > > much more easily if you follow it.
> > >
> > > Note that WS-I BP does require that all input messages have a unique
> > > signature. If you have more than one operations that accept no input,
> > > you must disambiguate the request messages some way. I always
> > > recommend following the wrapped convention just because it makes
> > > things easier.
> > >
> > > Anne
> > >
> > > On 4/1/07, Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Anne
> > > > thanks for the clarification. I am wondering if what you said for
> RPC
> > type
> > > > is also valid for the wrapped doc-lit type too [which kind of
> similar to
> > rpc
> > > > literal type and which is followed by .Net]. I mean if a pojo
> service
> > method
> > > > signature reads --
> > > >
> > > > public void test(String s)
> > > >
> > > > The response wsdl message will have a part element like ---
> > > >
> > > > <message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
> > > > <part name="output" element="myns:testResponse/>
> > > > </message>
> > > >
> > > > -right? as opposed to having no part defined like ----
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <message name="wsns:testTesponseMessage">
> > > > </message>
> > > >
> > > > I am generating the service wsdl on my own and am integrating to
> .Net
> > > > paltform [.Net is the client]. Since .Net seems to be following the
> > wrapped
> > > > doc-lit style do you think I should generate the wsdl response
> message
> > with
> > > > a non-empty part as shown above [even though the pojo method has
> void
> > return
> > > > type]
> > > >
> > > > This will imply that for a request response kind of web service we
> > allways
> > > > need to have a response message with one part element to be
> compliant
> > with
> > > > .Net? That seems little to harsh for me as I didnt find any such
> > requirement
> > > > in BP 1.1 OR this is something that is introduced just because of
> .Net?
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > > Rishi
> > > > On 3/31/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It depends on the style.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are using document style, an empty message declaration with
> no
> > > > > parts (either input or output) will generate an empty SOAP body.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are using rpc style, an empty input message declaration
> will
> > > > > generate a SOAP body containing an element that has a local name
> equal
> > > > > to the operation name in the namespace specified in the
> <soap:body>
> > > > > declaration in the binding. An empty output message declaration
> will
> > > > > generate a SOAP body containing an element representing the
> response
> > > > > value (in this case, void). The name of the response element is
> not
> > > > > significant, but by convention it has a local name constructed
> from
> > > > > the operation name appended with "Response" and it is in the
> namespace
> > > > > specified in the <soap:body> declaration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anne
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/30/07, Rishi krish < rishikrrish@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Also just wanted to show what the TCP monitor is howing for the
> > response
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > > > > <soapenv:Envelope
> > > > > >
> > > > xmlns:soapenv="
> > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
> > > > > > xmlns:xsd=" http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema "
> > > > > > xmlns:xsi="
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
> > > > > > <soapenv:Body/>
> > > > > > </soapenv:Envelope>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So the body elemet is empty and the wsdl snippet is below:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <message name="AddrMessage">
> > > > > > <part name="input" element="inx:Address" />
> > > > > > </message>
> > > > > > <message name="AddrMessageResponse" />
> > > > > > <portType name="AddrPortType">
> > > > > > <operation name="processAddr">
> > > > > > <input message="inws:AddrMessage" />
> > > > > > <output message="inws:AddrMessageResponse" />
> > > > > > </operation>
> > > > > > </portType>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note the AddrMessageResponse definition - thats empty too. So
> can I
> > > > conclude
> > > > > > that an empty wsdl"message definition would imply a empty soap
> body
> > > > element
> > > > > > in wire?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > Rishi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/30/07, Amila Suriarachchi < amilasuriarachchi@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3/29/07, Rishi krish <rishikrrish@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi All
> > > > > > > > This is probably a generic wsdl question - I will be using a
> the
> > > > Axis2
> > > > > > serviceclient api to call a web service which has a wsdl
> operation
> > [with
> > > > > > http binding] the outpout of which refers to a wsdl:message
> which
> > has no
> > > > > > parts defined. I am wondering what that means for the service
> > response?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http binding has not clearly defined in wsdl 1.1. so if you
> deal
> > with
> > > > http
> > > > > > bindings better to use WSDL 2.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A>the response would be an empty soap body
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if you use http binding you would not get any soap messages.
> So we
> > can
> > > > > > throw this option.
> > > > > > > Actually this is the case if you have above serario with a
> > > > > > document/literal binding.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > B>The response would be just an http response with no trace
> of
> > soap.
> > > > [no
> > > > > > soap envelope]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this should be the case. the problem here is that
> wsdl
> > 1.1
> > > > spec
> > > > > > does not clearly specify whether we have to use the rpc type
> message
> > > > > > construction or document type message construction with http
> > binding.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can anyone pls confirm what should be the response if the
> > > > service/soap
> > > > > > engine is behaving correctly?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > > > Rishi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Amila Suriarachchi,
> > > > > > > WSO2 Inc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > Rishi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > thanks
> > > > Rishi
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > thanks
> > Rishi
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
thanks
Rishi
Re: wsdl message with no parts
Posted by Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com>.
.NET can consume an unwrapped doc/literal service, but it's less
convenient for the .NET developer. As a general rule, I recommend that
you always follow the wrapped convention.
I'm having trouble understanding where the BP 1.1 validator is
failing. Could you show us the WSDL (or a similar representation)
that's failing?
When using doc/literal, your messages may contain at most one body
part (which becomes a child of the <soap:body> in the SOAP message). A
"part accessor element" refers to the child of the <soap:body>. (In
RPC style, the "part accessor elements" refer to children of the
auto-generated wrapper element that has the same local name as the
operation.) I believe the error is referring to the SOAP message, not
to the WSDL.
Anne
On 4/1/07, Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Anne
> Thanks again for your clarification on .Net requirements. You said doc-Lit
> wrapped is the default format generated by .Net. Do you imply that if my
> axis service is not conforming to doc-lit wrapped format .Net cannot
> communicate to it? OR .Net can be configured to communicate with a service
> which is just doc-lit and not wrapped?
> I had downloaded the c# based BP 1.1 validator from WS-I site [I am hoping
> that this is representative of .Net platform] and have been trying tests
> with it. It fails me on BP1212 which implements R2212 which requires:
>
> An ENVELOPE MUST contain exactly one part accessor element for each of the
> wsdl:part elements bound to the envelope's corresponding soapbind:body
> element.
>
> My wsdl soapbind:body does not have any part attribute defined - and thats
> perfectly valid [as per R2210] as I have only one part defined in the
> wsdl:message definition. The java BP 1.1 tool says "notApplicable". Is this
> a bug with the c# BP 1.1 tool or this is a .Net requirement that the wsdl
> soapbind:body element has to have the part attribute defined.
>
> thanks
> Rishi
>
>
>
> On 4/1/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you have an empty message, then you aren't following the wrapped
> > convention. The wrapped convention requires that the input message
> > contain an element whose local name is the same as the operation, and
> > the output message contain an element whose local name is the
> > operation appended with "Response". (Essentially it literally follows
> > the RPC convention so that programming frameworks can support an
> > RPC-style programming model, yet still implement a doc/literal
> > message.)
> >
> > For your example, to use wrapped doc/literal, you should define the
> > response message as:
> >
> > <message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
> > <part name="parameters" element="myns:testResponse/>
> > </message>
> >
> > (.NET further requires that the part name = "parameters")
> >
> > The wrapped convention was established by .NET. It is the default
> > format generated by .NET. The Java community responded in order to
> > interoperate more effectively with .NET. The JAX-RPC spec is the only
> > formal specification that defines the wrapped convention.
> >
> > You are under no obligation to support the wrapped convention, but if
> > you want to enable interoperability with .NET, you'll find things go
> > much more easily if you follow it.
> >
> > Note that WS-I BP does require that all input messages have a unique
> > signature. If you have more than one operations that accept no input,
> > you must disambiguate the request messages some way. I always
> > recommend following the wrapped convention just because it makes
> > things easier.
> >
> > Anne
> >
> > On 4/1/07, Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Anne
> > > thanks for the clarification. I am wondering if what you said for RPC
> type
> > > is also valid for the wrapped doc-lit type too [which kind of similar to
> rpc
> > > literal type and which is followed by .Net]. I mean if a pojo service
> method
> > > signature reads --
> > >
> > > public void test(String s)
> > >
> > > The response wsdl message will have a part element like ---
> > >
> > > <message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
> > > <part name="output" element="myns:testResponse/>
> > > </message>
> > >
> > > -right? as opposed to having no part defined like ----
> > >
> > >
> > > <message name="wsns:testTesponseMessage">
> > > </message>
> > >
> > > I am generating the service wsdl on my own and am integrating to .Net
> > > paltform [.Net is the client]. Since .Net seems to be following the
> wrapped
> > > doc-lit style do you think I should generate the wsdl response message
> with
> > > a non-empty part as shown above [even though the pojo method has void
> return
> > > type]
> > >
> > > This will imply that for a request response kind of web service we
> allways
> > > need to have a response message with one part element to be compliant
> with
> > > .Net? That seems little to harsh for me as I didnt find any such
> requirement
> > > in BP 1.1 OR this is something that is introduced just because of .Net?
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > Rishi
> > > On 3/31/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It depends on the style.
> > > >
> > > > If you are using document style, an empty message declaration with no
> > > > parts (either input or output) will generate an empty SOAP body.
> > > >
> > > > If you are using rpc style, an empty input message declaration will
> > > > generate a SOAP body containing an element that has a local name equal
> > > > to the operation name in the namespace specified in the <soap:body>
> > > > declaration in the binding. An empty output message declaration will
> > > > generate a SOAP body containing an element representing the response
> > > > value (in this case, void). The name of the response element is not
> > > > significant, but by convention it has a local name constructed from
> > > > the operation name appended with "Response" and it is in the namespace
> > > > specified in the <soap:body> declaration.
> > > >
> > > > Anne
> > > >
> > > > On 3/30/07, Rishi krish < rishikrrish@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Also just wanted to show what the TCP monitor is howing for the
> response
> > > > >
> > > > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > > > <soapenv:Envelope
> > > > >
> > > xmlns:soapenv="
> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
> > > > > xmlns:xsd=" http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema "
> > > > > xmlns:xsi="
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
> > > > > <soapenv:Body/>
> > > > > </soapenv:Envelope>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So the body elemet is empty and the wsdl snippet is below:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <message name="AddrMessage">
> > > > > <part name="input" element="inx:Address" />
> > > > > </message>
> > > > > <message name="AddrMessageResponse" />
> > > > > <portType name="AddrPortType">
> > > > > <operation name="processAddr">
> > > > > <input message="inws:AddrMessage" />
> > > > > <output message="inws:AddrMessageResponse" />
> > > > > </operation>
> > > > > </portType>
> > > > >
> > > > > Note the AddrMessageResponse definition - thats empty too. So can I
> > > conclude
> > > > > that an empty wsdl"message definition would imply a empty soap body
> > > element
> > > > > in wire?
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > Rishi
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/30/07, Amila Suriarachchi < amilasuriarachchi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/29/07, Rishi krish <rishikrrish@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi All
> > > > > > > This is probably a generic wsdl question - I will be using a the
> > > Axis2
> > > > > serviceclient api to call a web service which has a wsdl operation
> [with
> > > > > http binding] the outpout of which refers to a wsdl:message which
> has no
> > > > > parts defined. I am wondering what that means for the service
> response?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http binding has not clearly defined in wsdl 1.1. so if you deal
> with
> > > http
> > > > > bindings better to use WSDL 2.0
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A>the response would be an empty soap body
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if you use http binding you would not get any soap messages. So we
> can
> > > > > throw this option.
> > > > > > Actually this is the case if you have above serario with a
> > > > > document/literal binding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > B>The response would be just an http response with no trace of
> soap.
> > > [no
> > > > > soap envelope]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think this should be the case. the problem here is that wsdl
> 1.1
> > > spec
> > > > > does not clearly specify whether we have to use the rpc type message
> > > > > construction or document type message construction with http
> binding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can anyone pls confirm what should be the response if the
> > > service/soap
> > > > > engine is behaving correctly?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > > Rishi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Amila Suriarachchi,
> > > > > > WSO2 Inc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > Rishi
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > thanks
> > > Rishi
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> thanks
> Rishi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
Re: wsdl message with no parts
Posted by Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com>.
Hi Anne
Thanks again for your clarification on .Net requirements. You said doc-Lit
wrapped is the *default* format generated by .Net. Do you imply that if my
axis service is not conforming to doc-lit wrapped format .Net cannot
communicate to it? OR .Net can be configured to communicate with a service
which is just doc-lit and not wrapped?
I had downloaded the c# based BP 1.1 validator from WS-I site [I am hoping
that this is representative of .Net platform] and have been trying tests
with it. It fails me on BP1212 which implements R2212 which requires:
An ENVELOPE MUST contain exactly one part accessor element for each of the
wsdl:part elements bound to the envelope's corresponding soapbind:bodyelement.
My wsdl soapbind:body does not have any part attribute defined - and thats
perfectly valid [as per R2210] as I have only one part defined in the
wsdl:message definition. The java BP 1.1 tool says "notApplicable". Is this
a bug with the c# BP 1.1 tool or this is a .Net requirement that the wsdl
soapbind:body element has to have the part attribute defined.
thanks
Rishi
On 4/1/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you have an empty message, then you aren't following the wrapped
> convention. The wrapped convention requires that the input message
> contain an element whose local name is the same as the operation, and
> the output message contain an element whose local name is the
> operation appended with "Response". (Essentially it literally follows
> the RPC convention so that programming frameworks can support an
> RPC-style programming model, yet still implement a doc/literal
> message.)
>
> For your example, to use wrapped doc/literal, you should define the
> response message as:
>
> <message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
> <part name="parameters" element="myns:testResponse/>
> </message>
>
> (.NET further requires that the part name = "parameters")
>
> The wrapped convention was established by .NET. It is the default
> format generated by .NET. The Java community responded in order to
> interoperate more effectively with .NET. The JAX-RPC spec is the only
> formal specification that defines the wrapped convention.
>
> You are under no obligation to support the wrapped convention, but if
> you want to enable interoperability with .NET, you'll find things go
> much more easily if you follow it.
>
> Note that WS-I BP does require that all input messages have a unique
> signature. If you have more than one operations that accept no input,
> you must disambiguate the request messages some way. I always
> recommend following the wrapped convention just because it makes
> things easier.
>
> Anne
>
> On 4/1/07, Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Anne
> > thanks for the clarification. I am wondering if what you said for RPC
> type
> > is also valid for the wrapped doc-lit type too [which kind of similar to
> rpc
> > literal type and which is followed by .Net]. I mean if a pojo service
> method
> > signature reads --
> >
> > public void test(String s)
> >
> > The response wsdl message will have a part element like ---
> >
> > <message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
> > <part name="output" element="myns:testResponse/>
> > </message>
> >
> > -right? as opposed to having no part defined like ----
> >
> >
> > <message name="wsns:testTesponseMessage">
> > </message>
> >
> > I am generating the service wsdl on my own and am integrating to .Net
> > paltform [.Net is the client]. Since .Net seems to be following the
> wrapped
> > doc-lit style do you think I should generate the wsdl response message
> with
> > a non-empty part as shown above [even though the pojo method has void
> return
> > type]
> >
> > This will imply that for a request response kind of web service we
> allways
> > need to have a response message with one part element to be compliant
> with
> > .Net? That seems little to harsh for me as I didnt find any such
> requirement
> > in BP 1.1 OR this is something that is introduced just because of .Net?
> >
> > thanks
> > Rishi
> > On 3/31/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It depends on the style.
> > >
> > > If you are using document style, an empty message declaration with no
> > > parts (either input or output) will generate an empty SOAP body.
> > >
> > > If you are using rpc style, an empty input message declaration will
> > > generate a SOAP body containing an element that has a local name equal
> > > to the operation name in the namespace specified in the <soap:body>
> > > declaration in the binding. An empty output message declaration will
> > > generate a SOAP body containing an element representing the response
> > > value (in this case, void). The name of the response element is not
> > > significant, but by convention it has a local name constructed from
> > > the operation name appended with "Response" and it is in the namespace
> > > specified in the <soap:body> declaration.
> > >
> > > Anne
> > >
> > > On 3/30/07, Rishi krish < rishikrrish@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Also just wanted to show what the TCP monitor is howing for the
> response
> > > >
> > > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > > <soapenv:Envelope
> > > >
> > xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
> > > > xmlns:xsd=" http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema "
> > > > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
> > > > <soapenv:Body/>
> > > > </soapenv:Envelope>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So the body elemet is empty and the wsdl snippet is below:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <message name="AddrMessage">
> > > > <part name="input" element="inx:Address" />
> > > > </message>
> > > > <message name="AddrMessageResponse" />
> > > > <portType name="AddrPortType">
> > > > <operation name="processAddr">
> > > > <input message="inws:AddrMessage" />
> > > > <output message="inws:AddrMessageResponse" />
> > > > </operation>
> > > > </portType>
> > > >
> > > > Note the AddrMessageResponse definition - thats empty too. So can I
> > conclude
> > > > that an empty wsdl"message definition would imply a empty soap body
> > element
> > > > in wire?
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > > Rishi
> > > >
> > > > On 3/30/07, Amila Suriarachchi < amilasuriarachchi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/29/07, Rishi krish <rishikrrish@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All
> > > > > > This is probably a generic wsdl question - I will be using a the
> > Axis2
> > > > serviceclient api to call a web service which has a wsdl operation
> [with
> > > > http binding] the outpout of which refers to a wsdl:message which
> has no
> > > > parts defined. I am wondering what that means for the service
> response?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http binding has not clearly defined in wsdl 1.1. so if you deal
> with
> > http
> > > > bindings better to use WSDL 2.0
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A>the response would be an empty soap body
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > if you use http binding you would not get any soap messages. So we
> can
> > > > throw this option.
> > > > > Actually this is the case if you have above serario with a
> > > > document/literal binding.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B>The response would be just an http response with no trace of
> soap.
> > [no
> > > > soap envelope]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this should be the case. the problem here is that wsdl
> 1.1
> > spec
> > > > does not clearly specify whether we have to use the rpc type message
> > > > construction or document type message construction with http
> binding.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can anyone pls confirm what should be the response if the
> > service/soap
> > > > engine is behaving correctly?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > Rishi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Amila Suriarachchi,
> > > > > WSO2 Inc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > thanks
> > > > Rishi
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > thanks
> > Rishi
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
thanks
Rishi
Re: wsdl message with no parts
Posted by Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com>.
One more thing ...
The wrapped convention also requires that the response element be
defined as a complexType with a sequence, e.g.,
<element name="testResponse>
<complexType>
<sequence/>
</complexType>
</element>
Anne
On 4/1/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have an empty message, then you aren't following the wrapped
> convention. The wrapped convention requires that the input message
> contain an element whose local name is the same as the operation, and
> the output message contain an element whose local name is the
> operation appended with "Response". (Essentially it literally follows
> the RPC convention so that programming frameworks can support an
> RPC-style programming model, yet still implement a doc/literal
> message.)
>
> For your example, to use wrapped doc/literal, you should define the
> response message as:
>
> <message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
> <part name="parameters" element="myns:testResponse/>
> </message>
>
> (.NET further requires that the part name = "parameters")
>
> The wrapped convention was established by .NET. It is the default
> format generated by .NET. The Java community responded in order to
> interoperate more effectively with .NET. The JAX-RPC spec is the only
> formal specification that defines the wrapped convention.
>
> You are under no obligation to support the wrapped convention, but if
> you want to enable interoperability with .NET, you'll find things go
> much more easily if you follow it.
>
> Note that WS-I BP does require that all input messages have a unique
> signature. If you have more than one operations that accept no input,
> you must disambiguate the request messages some way. I always
> recommend following the wrapped convention just because it makes
> things easier.
>
> Anne
>
> On 4/1/07, Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Anne
> > thanks for the clarification. I am wondering if what you said for RPC type
> > is also valid for the wrapped doc-lit type too [which kind of similar to rpc
> > literal type and which is followed by .Net]. I mean if a pojo service method
> > signature reads --
> >
> > public void test(String s)
> >
> > The response wsdl message will have a part element like ---
> >
> > <message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
> > <part name="output" element="myns:testResponse/>
> > </message>
> >
> > -right? as opposed to having no part defined like ----
> >
> >
> > <message name="wsns:testTesponseMessage">
> > </message>
> >
> > I am generating the service wsdl on my own and am integrating to .Net
> > paltform [.Net is the client]. Since .Net seems to be following the wrapped
> > doc-lit style do you think I should generate the wsdl response message with
> > a non-empty part as shown above [even though the pojo method has void return
> > type]
> >
> > This will imply that for a request response kind of web service we allways
> > need to have a response message with one part element to be compliant with
> > .Net? That seems little to harsh for me as I didnt find any such requirement
> > in BP 1.1 OR this is something that is introduced just because of .Net?
> >
> > thanks
> > Rishi
> > On 3/31/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It depends on the style.
> > >
> > > If you are using document style, an empty message declaration with no
> > > parts (either input or output) will generate an empty SOAP body.
> > >
> > > If you are using rpc style, an empty input message declaration will
> > > generate a SOAP body containing an element that has a local name equal
> > > to the operation name in the namespace specified in the <soap:body>
> > > declaration in the binding. An empty output message declaration will
> > > generate a SOAP body containing an element representing the response
> > > value (in this case, void). The name of the response element is not
> > > significant, but by convention it has a local name constructed from
> > > the operation name appended with "Response" and it is in the namespace
> > > specified in the <soap:body> declaration.
> > >
> > > Anne
> > >
> > > On 3/30/07, Rishi krish < rishikrrish@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Also just wanted to show what the TCP monitor is howing for the response
> > > >
> > > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > > <soapenv:Envelope
> > > >
> > xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
> > > > xmlns:xsd=" http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema "
> > > > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
> > > > <soapenv:Body/>
> > > > </soapenv:Envelope>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So the body elemet is empty and the wsdl snippet is below:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <message name="AddrMessage">
> > > > <part name="input" element="inx:Address" />
> > > > </message>
> > > > <message name="AddrMessageResponse" />
> > > > <portType name="AddrPortType">
> > > > <operation name="processAddr">
> > > > <input message="inws:AddrMessage" />
> > > > <output message="inws:AddrMessageResponse" />
> > > > </operation>
> > > > </portType>
> > > >
> > > > Note the AddrMessageResponse definition - thats empty too. So can I
> > conclude
> > > > that an empty wsdl"message definition would imply a empty soap body
> > element
> > > > in wire?
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > > Rishi
> > > >
> > > > On 3/30/07, Amila Suriarachchi < amilasuriarachchi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/29/07, Rishi krish <rishikrrish@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All
> > > > > > This is probably a generic wsdl question - I will be using a the
> > Axis2
> > > > serviceclient api to call a web service which has a wsdl operation [with
> > > > http binding] the outpout of which refers to a wsdl:message which has no
> > > > parts defined. I am wondering what that means for the service response?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http binding has not clearly defined in wsdl 1.1. so if you deal with
> > http
> > > > bindings better to use WSDL 2.0
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A>the response would be an empty soap body
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > if you use http binding you would not get any soap messages. So we can
> > > > throw this option.
> > > > > Actually this is the case if you have above serario with a
> > > > document/literal binding.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B>The response would be just an http response with no trace of soap.
> > [no
> > > > soap envelope]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this should be the case. the problem here is that wsdl 1.1
> > spec
> > > > does not clearly specify whether we have to use the rpc type message
> > > > construction or document type message construction with http binding.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can anyone pls confirm what should be the response if the
> > service/soap
> > > > engine is behaving correctly?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > Rishi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Amila Suriarachchi,
> > > > > WSO2 Inc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > thanks
> > > > Rishi
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > thanks
> > Rishi
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
Re: wsdl message with no parts
Posted by Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com>.
If you have an empty message, then you aren't following the wrapped
convention. The wrapped convention requires that the input message
contain an element whose local name is the same as the operation, and
the output message contain an element whose local name is the
operation appended with "Response". (Essentially it literally follows
the RPC convention so that programming frameworks can support an
RPC-style programming model, yet still implement a doc/literal
message.)
For your example, to use wrapped doc/literal, you should define the
response message as:
<message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
<part name="parameters" element="myns:testResponse/>
</message>
(.NET further requires that the part name = "parameters")
The wrapped convention was established by .NET. It is the default
format generated by .NET. The Java community responded in order to
interoperate more effectively with .NET. The JAX-RPC spec is the only
formal specification that defines the wrapped convention.
You are under no obligation to support the wrapped convention, but if
you want to enable interoperability with .NET, you'll find things go
much more easily if you follow it.
Note that WS-I BP does require that all input messages have a unique
signature. If you have more than one operations that accept no input,
you must disambiguate the request messages some way. I always
recommend following the wrapped convention just because it makes
things easier.
Anne
On 4/1/07, Rishi krish <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Anne
> thanks for the clarification. I am wondering if what you said for RPC type
> is also valid for the wrapped doc-lit type too [which kind of similar to rpc
> literal type and which is followed by .Net]. I mean if a pojo service method
> signature reads --
>
> public void test(String s)
>
> The response wsdl message will have a part element like ---
>
> <message name="wsns:testResponseMessage">
> <part name="output" element="myns:testResponse/>
> </message>
>
> -right? as opposed to having no part defined like ----
>
>
> <message name="wsns:testTesponseMessage">
> </message>
>
> I am generating the service wsdl on my own and am integrating to .Net
> paltform [.Net is the client]. Since .Net seems to be following the wrapped
> doc-lit style do you think I should generate the wsdl response message with
> a non-empty part as shown above [even though the pojo method has void return
> type]
>
> This will imply that for a request response kind of web service we allways
> need to have a response message with one part element to be compliant with
> .Net? That seems little to harsh for me as I didnt find any such requirement
> in BP 1.1 OR this is something that is introduced just because of .Net?
>
> thanks
> Rishi
> On 3/31/07, Anne Thomas Manes <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It depends on the style.
> >
> > If you are using document style, an empty message declaration with no
> > parts (either input or output) will generate an empty SOAP body.
> >
> > If you are using rpc style, an empty input message declaration will
> > generate a SOAP body containing an element that has a local name equal
> > to the operation name in the namespace specified in the <soap:body>
> > declaration in the binding. An empty output message declaration will
> > generate a SOAP body containing an element representing the response
> > value (in this case, void). The name of the response element is not
> > significant, but by convention it has a local name constructed from
> > the operation name appended with "Response" and it is in the namespace
> > specified in the <soap:body> declaration.
> >
> > Anne
> >
> > On 3/30/07, Rishi krish < rishikrrish@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Also just wanted to show what the TCP monitor is howing for the response
> > >
> > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > <soapenv:Envelope
> > >
> xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
> > > xmlns:xsd=" http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema "
> > > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
> > > <soapenv:Body/>
> > > </soapenv:Envelope>
> > >
> > >
> > > So the body elemet is empty and the wsdl snippet is below:
> > >
> > >
> > > <message name="AddrMessage">
> > > <part name="input" element="inx:Address" />
> > > </message>
> > > <message name="AddrMessageResponse" />
> > > <portType name="AddrPortType">
> > > <operation name="processAddr">
> > > <input message="inws:AddrMessage" />
> > > <output message="inws:AddrMessageResponse" />
> > > </operation>
> > > </portType>
> > >
> > > Note the AddrMessageResponse definition - thats empty too. So can I
> conclude
> > > that an empty wsdl"message definition would imply a empty soap body
> element
> > > in wire?
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > Rishi
> > >
> > > On 3/30/07, Amila Suriarachchi < amilasuriarachchi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/29/07, Rishi krish <rishikrrish@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi All
> > > > > This is probably a generic wsdl question - I will be using a the
> Axis2
> > > serviceclient api to call a web service which has a wsdl operation [with
> > > http binding] the outpout of which refers to a wsdl:message which has no
> > > parts defined. I am wondering what that means for the service response?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http binding has not clearly defined in wsdl 1.1. so if you deal with
> http
> > > bindings better to use WSDL 2.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A>the response would be an empty soap body
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > if you use http binding you would not get any soap messages. So we can
> > > throw this option.
> > > > Actually this is the case if you have above serario with a
> > > document/literal binding.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > B>The response would be just an http response with no trace of soap.
> [no
> > > soap envelope]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this should be the case. the problem here is that wsdl 1.1
> spec
> > > does not clearly specify whether we have to use the rpc type message
> > > construction or document type message construction with http binding.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can anyone pls confirm what should be the response if the
> service/soap
> > > engine is behaving correctly?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > Rishi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Amila Suriarachchi,
> > > > WSO2 Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > thanks
> > > Rishi
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> thanks
> Rishi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-user-help@ws.apache.org