I have a created web service that takes 2 complex types as parameters. I can use the auto-generated WSDL to create a new application that calls my web service and it works perfectly.
However, a 3rd party consumer is having trouble calling my web service. I see their incoming request in the IIS7 log file and a 500 error is being returned to them.
I suspect that their request is malformed. I would like to be able to see the entire <soap:envelope> that IIS7 is receiving so that I can troubleshoot the issue. I am using Windows Server 2008 and IIS7.
How can I do this?
I would open up a copy of WireShark while they are putting their request through. You can then see each packet which comes to your server. Wireshark is cool because it can put all of the packets back together so you can see the full HTTP request they're sending.
Related
I will be happy to get advice from more experienced developers about adding Web Sockets into my HTTP-based project.
That’s the thing. I have developed the REST API based service. Everything works well enough, but… In some special cases my server needs a long time to serve client requests. It may be from 1 minute to several hours (and even days)! I implement some not-so-good algorithm to address this issue:
Client sends HTTP request
Server replies about registering request
Client starts sending HTTP requests to get necessary data (if response does not have needed information the client sends another request and so on)
That is all in a nutshell.
And it seems to be a bad scenario and I am trying to integrate web sockets for adding duplex-channels in this architecture. I hope that my API will be able to send info about updated data as soon as possible without the necessity of many requests from the client.
But I am a bit confused in choosing one of two ways to use web socket (WS).
Variant A.
The server only tells the client via WS that data is ready. And the client gets data by standard request-response HTTP method from REST API.
Variant B.
The server sends all data to the client via WS without HTTP at all.
What variant is more suitable? Or maybe some other variants?
I do not want to remove HTTP at all. I just try to implement WS for a particular kind of end-points.
Variant A would be more suitable and easy to implement. You can send message to the client after the data is ready, and he can then send request for the data. It will be like a simple chat websocket, and will serve your purpose.
My application produces a SOAP web service. When consumer consumes the web service sometimes user gets "Could not access envelope: Unable to create envelope from given source" error. If the same request is sent again, it processes sucessfully.
From many of the references, I found problem can be resolved by upgrading Xerces and Xalan version. I have updated both these jars still the problem persists.
Also one strange behaviour, there is no error when web service consumed with local host and port while problem comes when request is sent to https domain.
Any extra configuation to be made for handling reverse proxy or https protocol?
I have an ASPX page. When the page is loaded there is code in the code behind that uses an API. The API makes an HTTPS call out to a third party, commercial web service. I am trying to troubleshoot why the API calls are not working properly. Apparently the API actually constructs an XML request that is sent out over HTTPS to the web service. I've been told by the support rep that I need to provide them with the XML that is being sent. The only way I can figure out how to get the XML is to use a tool like Fiddler to see what is being sent out. So how can I use Fiddler to see the contents of the XML request that is being sent from the server out to the web service? I am running everything directly on the server but all I am seeing is the GET request for the ASPX file itself. I am not seeing anything in relation to the HTTPS request that the server code is sending out to the web service. I have not used Fiddler much so I am hoping that maybe I just don't have it set up right to monitor that traffic.
Corey
After mucking around with it a bit I found this post: Why isn't fiddler capturing request when invoking XMLRPC from iis?. That seemed to do the trick! Basically it sounds like the default proxy settings in Win7 are on a per user basis. So I went in and changed the identity of the AppPool for my site to a local user (Administrator) and then it worked great. I started up Fiddler. Then I started up my ASP.NET app and then when I loaded the page I saw the request that went out to the web service from my code behind! Yay!
We are trying to log all http requests made to our Tomcat server, in particular SOAP requests.
Our server setup is as follows:
Tomcat 7.0.11
Axis 2
Gentoo Linux
So far we have used the RequestDumperFilter class however this only shows us the header information.
What we require is the ability to view the request body containing the SOAP request XML.
I guess you could make use of some request processing components but I'm not sure if there is an easy way to view the request body in Tomcat.
From what I know, the ExtendedAccessLogValve provides the most information about the request but even this is missing the body.
The most simple solution would be to move the logging away from Tomcat and use a proxy server. You place the proxy between the server and it's clients and do the logging in the proxy.
Proxy receives request, logs it, then forwards to Tomcat which generates response, sends it to the proxy which logs it and then sends it to client. The simplest proxy I used (and did its job pretty well) was the Apache TCP Monitor.
Additionally you could look at something like Fiddler and see if that helps.
I am trying to send a SOAP request over HTTP for a web service through the following channels:
Telnet (HP-UX)
C client that opens a socket, writes XML and reads reasponse(HP-UX)
Perl client that does the same thing as the C client above(HP-UX)
Through SOAP UI application (http://www.soapui.org/)(Windows Machine)
While SOAP UI gets a response in about 100ms seconds or so; the rest of the channels get the same response but very slow.
I am wondering what might be the problem. If anybody has any idea about this please let me know.
Possibly the connection stays open per default for subsequent requests (not uncommon for webservers which expect you to request all kinds of javascript files, images, css files directly afterwards). You might want to try to send the Connection: close header.
Check the protocol , may be you are using HTTP1.0 not HTTP1.1