I m all for it, I would however like to keep each set of tests separate, perhaps we should come up with a different naming schema, there s no reason that youMessage 1 of 80 , Jul 2, 2001View SourceI'm all for it, I would however like to keep each set of tests separate,
perhaps we should come up with a different naming schema, there's no reason
that you have to tackle the current round B tests before the round C tests,
or the new additional types testing. I'd rather write 3 sets of smallish
servers/clients than one big chunk of server/client code.
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@...]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: Where's decimal?
Paul Kulchenko wrote:
>No question there. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't value.. I'm
> I think it's not enough.
still seeing endpoints that don't support the SOAPAction specified in the
whitemesa WSDL, or respond with rather unexpected (to me, at least) formats
for simple formats such as dates.
> We can keep echo* tests and add similar group of add* tests, whichRich Salz wrote:
> will add fixed string/number for simple types and, for example,
> duplicate last element of array for add*array tests.
> Not that any of us are cheating, of course, but raising the bar likeFor those who played honestly the first go around, I doubt this will
> this is a good idea.
surface additional incompatibilities. You are more likely to find
incompatibilities around the edges, with things like -INF, or nil values
passed as floats, or arrays of length zero. Paul, I know that you have run
tests like these before...
In any case, I am in full agreement that Round 2 as currently stated does
not raise the bar far enough. Personally, I see no reason to defer the
simple things that we are describing to a stage three... I mean, what
servers should not be able to handle boolean? Addition?
- Sam Ruby
P.S. This go around, I'm planning to have Apache participate in a first
class way... public server, posted client interop results, etc.
This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Alex, Thanks for the tip, the web.config entry worked great. I m now trying to get a .Net (beta 2) client calling a very simple helloworld Apache SOAP (v2.2)Message 80 of 80 , Jul 20, 2001View SourceAlex,
Thanks for the tip, the web.config entry worked great.
I'm now trying to get a .Net (beta 2) client calling a very simple
helloworld Apache SOAP (v2.2) service with one string in and a string
return. After jumping through many hoops already, I am close but
still get this error:
<faultcode>SOAP-ENV:Client</faultcode> <faultstring>No Deserializer
found to deserialize a ':meth1_inType1' using encoding
The type attribute for meth1_inType1 is defined as xsd:string. The
equivalent java client works fine and comparing the .net vs. java raw
soap requests, there are only 2 differences. 1) 1999 vs. 2001 XML
Schema namespaces and 2) the encodingStyle attribute is on the 'Body'
tag vs. on the 'helloworld' (method) tag. I read in Apache's doc's
that 2001 schema would be deserialized correctly, but haven't tested
this myself. Also, haven't found a way to tell .Net to put the
encodingStyle attribute on a different tag to test if that
specifically causes the fault.
Any suggestions as to how I can get this simple interoperability test
--- In soapbuilders@y..., "Alex DeJarnatt" <alexdej@m...> wrote:
> Paul, I can address the 3 issues you encountered. However, only one
> them can be fixed on the .NET side...
> 1. the binding attribute of port and the type attribute of binding
> QNames. The generated WSDL is correct. That said, this seems to be a
> common mistake -- a good number of the WSDLs on xmethods don't use
> QNames. Perhaps there's a newer import tool you could use that
> 2. ASP.NET web services beta 2 support WSDL 1.1, which requires use
> the 2001 XML Schema. Again, perhaps there's a newer import tool you
> could get...
> 3. the WSDL for get and post should be spec-compliant according to
> rules of WSDL section 4, but it's reasonable to not want to include
> in your generated WSDL if you're not interested in using get or
> You can turn off support for GET and POST on a per-appdir basis by
> putting the following in a file called web.config in the same
> as your .asmx
> <remove name="HttpGet"/>
> <remove name="HttpPost"/>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Welch [mailto:paulwelch28@y...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 2:21 PM
> To: soapbuilders@y...
> Subject: [soapbuilders] Re: .NET encoding stuff
> I've been trying to work through the .Net to IBM WSTK WSDL
> compatibility. I've made it all the way from .Net Web Service to a
> working auto-generated java client proxy, but only with several
> manual edits of the WSDL. I have a .Net service with the following
> attributes specified:
> at the class level:
> [SoapRpcServiceAttribute(RoutingStyle =
> and, at the method level:
> [SoapRpcMethodAttribute( "http://www.divine.com/",
> Even though it's generated in RPC style, the .Net WSDL still has
> several incompatibilities with the IBM WSTK proxygen utility
> (using .Net Studio beta 2 and IBM WSTK V2.3). The ones I've
> identified so far are:
> - Different Rules for Resolving Fully Qualified Definitions: For
> instance, .Net creates a s0 namespace (tempuri.com by default) and
> tries to qualify types to s0 that are actually defined in the
> document. The proxygen does not appear to look in the current
> document for fully qualified types. My solution so far has been to
> delete "s0:" qualifications from these, including the <port
> <binding type>, etc.
> - Different Levels of Support for XML Schema: .Net generates 2001
> Schema namespace, IBM WSTK expects 1999. So far, changing the WSDL
> to 1999 has worked.
> - HTTP Get/Post Support: I need to research this one further,
> however proxygen does not accept the .Net generated definitions for
> these. I was more interested in getting the SOAP binding to work,
> I haven't spent much time on it yet.
> I realize this is a short-term problem until the tools are more
> mature, but are there any solutions that might be more elegant than
> directly editing the WSDL, such as additional .Net attributes, etc.?
> Thanks in advance for any suggestions...
> Best Regards,