Unable to invoke a Siebel 8.0 webservice from webM65

Hi All,

I am trying to invoke a Siebel webservice in webM6.5 using the SOAP_RPC binding.
Everytime I try invoking the service it returns a SOAP FAULT:
There is no active Web Service with operation named ‘XYZ’.(SBL-EAI-04313).
The same wsdl works using a tool like XML Spy.
Is there anything i need to change, or is this a webM Integration Server 6.5 bug for which a fix would be required?

Regards,
Kiran:confused:

What is returning that soap fault? Siebel? That message appears to be saying that you are sending an incorrect soap request to Siebel. The soap request sent from IS should match the working one sent from XML Spy. Does it?

I doubt that this is an IS defect.

Mark

Hi Mark,

Siebel is returning the Soap Fault, but im feeding the same data to the webmethods webservice connector as well as the xml input in XML Spy,It still returns me There is no active Web Service with operation named ‘CCProductWS:ProductsInsertUpdate’.(SBL-EAI-04313).

Regards,
Kiran

I did not ask if you were giving the same WSDL to IS as you were to XML Spy.

I asked if when you examine the request message sent by IS to Sieble how it differs from the one sent from XML Spy.

The messages are obviously different, the question is how are they different and why do the differences occur.

It is your job to find out these things.

Hi Mark,

I extracted the requests sent by webM and XML Spy from the Siebel logs.
Attaching the same,one major difference I found was that webM is sending the data as attributes whereas XML Spy is sending it as elements.
Kindly guide me in resolving this issue.

Regards,
Kiran

Hi,

Another thing to mention is when I imported the wsdl in webmethods, it prefixed each input field with the value xsdLocal0, i went through the available fixes, and there is a IS_6-5_SP2_WebSvcsXML_Fix9 which might resolve this issue.
I also, deleted xsdLocal0 from each of the fields, but still it gives the same error on invokation.

Regards,
Kiran

You did not include the namespace definitions for these two messages, so its impossible to tell if they are semantically equivalent.

try with siebel latest version or ask siebel for latest patch, if you want to work with wm + siebel. there was some bug in siebel in API’s which wm uses for validating their credentials.

thanks