Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [soapbuilders] Sun Endpoints Updated

Expand Messages
  • Sam Ruby
    ... echoA is fixed. Still looking into why echoB is broken. - Sam Ruby
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Arun Gupta wrote:
      >
      > http://nagoya.apache.org:5049/axis/services/echoA?wsdl and
      > http://nagoya.apache.org:5049/axis/services/echoB?wsdl seem to have defined
      >
      > <complexType name="Map">

      echoA is fixed. Still looking into why echoB is broken.

      - Sam Ruby
    • David Crowley
      A quick question. For SOAP 1.1, is the order in which elements appear in SOAP:Fault important? Is it true that the Sun toolkit wants the Fault elements to
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        A quick question. For SOAP 1.1, is the order in which elements appear in
        SOAP:Fault important? Is it true that the Sun toolkit wants the Fault
        elements to appear in the exact order faultcode, faultstring, faultactor,
        detail. The spec [1] doesn't indicate order is important. The SOAP 1.1
        schema specifies a sequence with elements in the above order but it also
        doesn't appear to allow any additional namespace qualified elements as
        specified in the spec ("Other Fault subelements MAY be present, provided
        they are namespace-qualified").

        Thanks,

        David




        [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383507
        [2] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/
      • Wes Moulder
        I believe it falls under a spec/schema discrepency. I d follow the spec since the schema seems incomplete in other regards. --Wes ... From: David Crowley
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Message
          I believe it falls under a spec/schema discrepency.  I'd follow the spec since the schema seems incomplete in other regards.
           
          --Wes
          -----Original Message-----
          From: David Crowley [mailto:dcrowley@...]
          Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 3:47 PM
          To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Sun Endpoints Updated


          A quick question.  For SOAP 1.1, is the order in which elements appear in
          SOAP:Fault important?  Is it true that the Sun toolkit wants the Fault
          elements to appear in the exact order faultcode, faultstring, faultactor,
          detail. The spec [1] doesn't indicate order is important.  The SOAP 1.1
          schema specifies a sequence with elements in the above order but it also
          doesn't appear to allow any additional namespace qualified elements as
          specified in the spec ("Other Fault subelements MAY be present, provided
          they are namespace-qualified").

          Thanks,

          David




          [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383507
          [2] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/



          -----------------------------------------------------------------
          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:
          soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        • Rich Salz
          Yes, the spec is vague and the schema wrong For maximum interop, I suggest keeping the order and putting any additional data under the detail element. /r$
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes, the spec is vague and the schema "wrong"
            For maximum interop, I suggest keeping the order and putting any
            additional data under the detail element.
            /r$
          • David Crowley
            ... Great. That s what I wanted to hear. Thank you Rich and thank you Wes, David
            Message 5 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              At 05:45 PM 8/2/2002, Rich Salz wrote:
              >Yes, the spec is vague and the schema "wrong"
              >For maximum interop, I suggest keeping the order and putting any
              >additional data under the detail element.
              > /r$

              Great. That's what I wanted to hear.

              Thank you Rich and thank you Wes,

              David
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.