Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Advanced Search
Special notice only

145 results from messages in soapbuilders

Advanced Search
  • I've noticed a problem with .NET. Suppose I am returning a "parameters" value which is an array of struct "foo" defined as something like this: struct bar; struct foo { bar[] mybars; }; If my RPC response packets looks like this (standard stuff removed for brevity, SOAP 1.1 RPC encoding, etc.): ... I am expecting "parameters" to be an array with two (2) foos, the first having zero...
    David Crowley Aug 30, 2002
  • 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
    David Crowley Aug 2, 2002
  • 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...
    David Crowley Aug 2, 2002
  • Fetching Sponsored Content...
  • Something which I have always wanted to do with a SOAP GET endpoint is to use XSLT to process the result into a presentable web page. If you got tricky really tricky you could render multiple SOAP GET calls onto the same page. I just haven't had the time to try it out. You could build some cool stuff by doing that... David Got SOAP? http://easysoap.sourceforge.net
    David Crowley Jul 3, 2002
  • It seems to me that there are too many assumptions have to be made about how the reader side, writer side, and end user applications are written in order to take advantage of the being able to read the attached documents from a stream. So we can buffer the XML soap message because we "assume" it to be small. How small is small? 4k? 16k? 64k? 1M? 30M? It's all relative. If I'm...
    David Crowley May 21, 2002
  • At 06:10 PM 5/13/2002, you wrote: >HashTable seems like the longest running issue we've had. Is anyone >not in favor of adopting the current Apache serialization for this ? >it seems to be the most widely implemented at this point. > >Cheers >Simon My only issue with the Apache serialization is that it doesn't appear to be strongly typed. I want to know from the WSDL definition...
    David Crowley May 13, 2002
  • On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:52:06PM -0800, Dietrich Ayala wrote: > Thanks David. > > Did you test echoBoolean w/ true, false, 0 or 1? > Could you post the request msg? > > Dietrich > I tried "true", "false", and "junk". Trace attached. David
    David Crowley Apr 6, 2002
  • Hey Dietrich -- I found a few problems. For round 2 base: 1) echoString doesn't escape carriage returns as . 2) The echoXArray methods don't return a value if array length is zero. 3) echoBoolean method doesn't return a value. For round 2b: 1) echoStructAsSimpleTypes doesn't return an outputString parameter (and possibly others). 2) echo2DStringArray returns a 1D array. David At...
    David Crowley Apr 5, 2002
  • Hi Steven -- The right way to do this is to create a byte array which you want sent as Base64: SOAPArray soapArray; SOAPParameter param; param << SOAPBase64(soapArray); param >> SOAPBase64(soapArray); If you have any more questions about EasySoap, try the forums here: http://sourceforge.net/forum/?group_id=19009 since this is off topic for this mailing list. Good luck, David At 10...
    David Crowley Feb 6, 2002
  • Ack! Round C is failing on everything, all envelopes are missing the tags. David On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 07:39:45AM -0600, Matt Long wrote: > All, > > A,B,C endpoints have been updated for retesting. > > > Thx, > > -Matt Long > Phalanx Systems, LLC
    David Crowley Dec 15, 2001