| Author |
Message
|
| girish_kulkarni |
 Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:59 pm Post subject: How can I handle security exception for SOAPInput node |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 32
|
Dear All,
I want to handle message flow's security exceptions inside flow. My flow consists SOAPInput - compute -SOAPReply.
We dont have any settings like "Treat exceptions as normal exceptions" for SOAPInput node. Please let us know, is there any way we can achieve this as this is our client requirement.
Thanks in advance.
Girish |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mgk |
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1642
|
You should be able to check the "Send Faults to Failure Terminal" option and use that...
_________________
MGK
The postings I make on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| girish_kulkarni |
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 32
|
Thnk you very much MGK. I will check that.
Regards,
Girish |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| girish_kulkarni |
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 32
|
Hi MGK,
I checked "Send Faults to Failure Terminal" option, But I am not recieving security related error codes for ex: BIP2702 in failure terminal.
Basically, I want to handle security related exceptions differently in error sub flow which i am connecting to main flow's failure and catch terminal. I thought of handling it using BIP codes, But I get completely different error like your soap message can not be serialized in my failure terminal.
Please suggest us on this.
Thanks in advance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mgk |
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1642
|
The message sent to the failure terminal in this case is different. Put a trace node after the trace node and have a look at the message to see how. It contains just about the same message that would have been sent back to the user if the check box had not been checked.
Regards,
_________________
MGK
The postings I make on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bielesibub |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 02 Jul 2008
Posts: 40
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Girish,
If you are talking about ws-policy related exceptions (unsigned/unencrypted msgs, cert errors, integrity etc..), i'm not sure these exceptions get propagated to the failure terminal in a SOAP input node (although I really think that they should).
The 'Send faults to failure terminal' only appears to get schema faults etc.
Bielesibub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mgk |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1642
|
| Quote: |
| The 'Send faults to failure terminal' only appears to get schema faults etc. |
No it does not.
| Quote: |
| If you are talking about ws-policy related exceptions (unsigned/unencrypted msgs, cert errors, integrity etc..), i'm not sure these exceptions get propagated to the failure terminal in a SOAP input node (although I really think that they should). |
Yes they are (in most cases). The point is that the message that is sent down the failure terminal in this case is the same as the one that would have been sent back to the client if the box had not been checked...
_________________
MGK
The postings I make on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bielesibub |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 02 Jul 2008
Posts: 40
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
mgk,
Thanks for the reply. I've happily been able to capture schema faults from the SOAPInput but never a security (CWWSxxxE) error (the org.apache.AXIS2 variety)
We'll have to agree to disagree here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| bielesibub wrote: |
| We'll have to agree to disagree here |
Except that mgk likely wrote the code that you are disagreeing about... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bielesibub |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 02 Jul 2008
Posts: 40
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| bielesibub wrote: |
| We'll have to agree to disagree here |
Except that mgk likely wrote the code that you are disagreeing about... |
Or at a minimum can see it.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bielesibub |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 02 Jul 2008
Posts: 40
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
maybe I should raise a PMR?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| bielesibub wrote: |
| maybe I should raise a PMR? |
It's your right as a license paying customer. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
