soap problems

[Mike Jackson]

So, I have a problem I'd like to ask the group, hopefully someone will have an idea for me.  

I have a SOAP based web service I have to interface with.  The provider provides a WSDL.  The request object contains a bunch of strings and a date object.  This is a lookup kind of service, so you send across a bunch of stuff and it responses with the number of matches found.

Anyway, the problem is around the date object.  It's specified in the WSDL as a dateTime.  But it appears as if the service can't do the matching when there's a time portion of the date in the request.  I've somewhat verified this using SOAP-UI, if I leave off the time portion I appear to get a match result, but if it's included I get no matches.

I've got the project setup to build with maven, with the CXF generator plugin, so it'll build a soap client automatically as part of the build process (I know it's a bit old school perhaps).  I've got that setup to use the WSDL provided from their site so that if they make changes it'll at least rebuild the client so it is conforms with the service.  I could keep a copy of the WSDL locally and build off of that, but then I have the issue of updating it when they change things.

Oh, and the generated code is a jax-ws client.

So the question is, aside from keeping my own copy of the WSDL and modifying does anyone have any idea of how to influence the date rendering in the SOAP body generation to skip off putting in the time portion of the date?

--mike

-=-----
mike jackson
This message encrypted in Double-ROT-13 for your safety and security.

[Mike Jackson]

Never mind, I got this working by setting the timezone to DatatypeConstants.FIELD_UNDEFINED.  That seems to tell it to leave off with the timezone information in the date, which appears to be the real issue.

--mike
-=-----
mike jackson
This message encrypted in Double-ROT-13 for your safety and security.

Arguments about the second amendment used to revolve around whether guns keep us free. These days, however, they're all about whether guns keep us safe. Something significant has already been lost, even if we still have the right to bear arms.

[Steven Holmes]

That's good to know.  Maybe this could help someone else eventually.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SacGRU" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sacgru+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sac...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sacgru.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Steve Holmes

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
-Mark Twain (or maybe Abraham Lincoln, I've heard both)

[Mike Jackson]

I hope no one else has to need to know this.  It's quite annoying.

--mike
-=-----
mike jackson
This message encrypted in Double-ROT-13 for your safety and security.

Arguments about the second amendment used to revolve around whether guns keep us free. These days, however, they're all about whether guns keep us safe. Something significant has already been lost, even if we still have the right to bear arms.