| Author |
Message
|
| Sam Uppu |
 Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:14 am Post subject: WS-Addressing |
 |
|
Yatiri
Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Posts: 610
|
Hi Guys,
I have issue with ws-addressing header on soap request node.
I am trying to build ws-addressing headers by checking the ws-addressing box on soap request node. The input to soaprequest node is soap message with body. i am getting below error
| Quote: |
A SOAP Request node received an HTTP Error Status Code (5xx or 400) with an empty response body, when a SOAP payload was expected.
|
But when i add the headers manually and uncheck the ws-addressing box, I am able to get response.
Can u guys throw some light.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mgk |
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1642
|
I would compare what you send by hand with what the broker sends on the wire for the differences between the two. Use a proxy like Fiddler to inspect the traffic.
Kind 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 |
|
|
| Sam Uppu |
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Posts: 610
|
I dont have access to install Fiddler.
I think the issue was with the "From" element added on WS-A headers. Message broker adds the "From" element to the header. I added it to the message in SOAPUI and was getting same exception.
WMB adds "<a:From>127.0.0.1</a:From>". Is there any way to remove this header? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
You don't have to install it (Fiddler)
http://portableapps.com/node/28513
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Sam Uppu |
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Posts: 610
|
The issue is due to "From" element as I said earlier.
| Quote: |
| "<a:From>127.0.0.1</a:From>" |
How can we remove it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Sam Uppu |
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Posts: 610
|
| can someone help me with this. has anyone used the WS-Addressing option on SOAP Request node? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Change your setup in the following way:
On the SOAP Input node enable ws-addressing.
Use a different flow. Receive the message either from a SOAP Input node or and MQ Input node and send it to the flow with ws-addressing enabled by using an "asynchronous soap request node". Get the response with the corresponding reply node.
If this setup works then your ws-addressing is set up right.
Have fun 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mgk |
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1642
|
Firstly, yes, WSA does work in the SOAPRequest node and I have used it. So it's worth checking why the WSA:From is causing a problem. It is an "optional" element in the spec, but I would expect that a server that properly supports WSA can handle it. Maybe the problem is that the content of the from does not match what the server is expecting. In which case, the docs for WSA in a SOAP Request node explain how to set the From address dynamically in the LocalEnvironment.
Kind 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 |
|
|
| Sam Uppu |
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Posts: 610
|
| I had to change the ccsid to 1208. After that everything was working as expected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
