users@jax-rpc.java.net

Re: non-built-in/value data types and serialization/deserialzatio n problems

From: Havaldar, Raghu <Raghu.Havaldar_at_ONSTAR.COM>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 17:56:11 -0400

I found out that a value-type needs to be a Java-Bean to be transmitted
across the
wire (as per the 1.0.1 JAXRPC-RI). Does this reflect the JAX-RPC spec
Section 5.4 ?

>>From my understanding, a value-type can be a non-bean with its properties
defined to be public (which is what I had implemented, and the RI failed to
deserialize).

Does anybody have experiences w/ non-JavaBean value-types ?

thanks,
raghu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Havaldar, Raghu
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 4:02 PM
> To: 'JAXRPC-INTEREST_at_JAVA.SUN.COM'
> Subject: non-built-in/value data types and
> serialization/deserialzation problems
>
> Hi,
>
> Environment:
> - JAX-RPC RI 1.0.1
> - Win2K
> - JDK 1.3.1
>
> I have defined a bunch of non-built-in/value types as per Section 5.4 of
> the JAX-RPC spec. Each of them has a public no-arg constructor, and
> have all the variables defined to be public.
>
> When I try to use DII in a client and invoke the service, I get the
> following error:
>
> [java] java.rmi.ServerException: Internal Server Error
> (deserialization error: unexpected XML reader state. expected: END but
> found: START: esn)
> [java] at
> com.sun.xml.rpc.client.StreamingSender._raiseFault(StreamingSender.java:35
> 7)
> [java] at
> com.sun.xml.rpc.client.StreamingSender._send(StreamingSender.java:228)
> [java] at
> com.sun.xml.rpc.client.dii.CallInvokerImpl.doInvoke(CallInvokerImpl.java:5
> 4)
> [java] at
> com.sun.xml.rpc.client.dii.BasicCall.invoke(BasicCall.java:279)
> [java] at
> com.sun.xml.rpc.client.dii.CallInvocationHandler.doCall(CallInvocationHand
> ler.java:96)
> [java] at
> com.sun.xml.rpc.client.dii.CallInvocationHandler.invoke(CallInvocationHand
> ler.java:68)
> [java] at $Proxy0.invoke(Unknown Source)
> [java] at com.onstar.vehcomm.client.LockUnlockClient.main(Unknown
> Source)
>
> Is this some kind of serialization/deserialization error or some internal
> bug ? I have seen a similar problem
> being reported on BugParade - # 4736947.
>
>
>
> thanks,
> raghu
>
>
>