[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Facing 500 Internal Error while using HTTPAPI to call a web service
Hi,
I am using the HTTPAPI to call one of our web
services. The programs errors out with the following
error.
HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error.
It seems like a error in the server side. But the same
webervices are being used by other systems easily.
Need help and sugestion about what may be the issue
and where should I start to look up.
Thanks and Regards,
Girija Patro
--- ftpapi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Send Ftpapi mailing list submissions to
> ftpapi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> http://www.scottklement.com/mailman/listinfo/ftpapi
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> ftpapi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ftpapi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Ftpapi digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: SOCKUTIL vs HTTPAPI question
> (Brian@xxxxxxxxxx)
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 15:26:53 -0400
> From: Brian@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: SOCKUTIL vs HTTPAPI question
> To: HTTPAPI and FTPAPI Projects
> <ftpapi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
>
>
<OF96579593.37787BD8-ON852571FB.006A60D1-852571FB.006AD244@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Scott,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Just to be clear, it's not that we added custom
> routines to SOCKUTILR4.
>
> It is that we are using the version from SOCKTUT
> (your Sockets Tutorial)
> and it has additional procedures over the version
> from LIBHTTP.
>
>
> If you choose to keep SOCKUTILR4 in LIBHTTP could
> you make it the same
> version that is in SOCKTUT? This will help with
> the update problem you
> mention.
>
>
> Brian J. Garland
> Vermont Information Processing, Inc.
> brian@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> Scott Klement <sk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: ftpapi-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/30/2006 02:01 AM
> Please respond to
> HTTPAPI and FTPAPI Projects
> <ftpapi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> To
> HTTPAPI and FTPAPI Projects
> <ftpapi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: SOCKUTIL vs HTTPAPI question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> I strongly recommend that you never put any of your
> own code in the same
> library with HTTPAPI. I suggest that because it
> makes it very hard to
> upgrade HTTPAPI. I frequently create new versions
> of HTTPAPI for the sole
>
> reason of fixing bugs, and you wouldn't be able to
> use any of those bug
> fixes! Or new features... or whatever else.
>
> The only stuff that should be in the same library
> with HTTPAPI is the
> stuff that comes with it. That way, you can delete
> that library and
> install the new one, and none of your own code will
> require any changes.
>
> That being the case, there's really no harm in
> having a separate copy of
> SOCKUTILR4 that has your own custom routines.
>
> Having said that, I don't know of any reason why you
> couldn't replace the
> copy of SOCKUTILR4 in HTTPAPI with the one from the
> tutorial. As far as I
>
> know, they're exactly the same (other than the extra
> utilities, of
> course.)
>
> Actually, I was considering eliminating SOCKUTILR4
> from HTTPAPI, putting
> the routines in COMMTCPR4 instead.... but I'm not
> yet sure that I want
> to do that, and I'm a little concerned that it'd
> break someone's code --
> something I don't want to do.
>
> --
> Scott Klement http://www.scottklement.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Brian@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Scott,
> >
> > We previously downloaded your Socket Utilities and
> used that to put
> > together a communications program.
> >
> > We just downloaded HTTPAPI in order to do some web
> services stuff.
> >
> > The SOCKUTILR4 in LIBHTTP does not have RDLINE &
> WRLINE.
> >
> > Because we use these functions and would like to
> have everything coexist
> > in the same library we have a dilemma.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there any harm in us using the SOCKUTILR4 (and
> the appropriate /COPY
> > members) from the separate socket download and
> recreating HTTPAPIR4 over
> > that version?
> >
> > In future releases could you bring them in sync
> with each other?
> >
> >
> >
> > Brian J. Garland
> > Vermont Information Processing, Inc.
> > brian@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the FTPAPI mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> please go to:
> http://www.scottklement.com/mailman/listinfo/ftpapi
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
>
> Scott,
> Thanks for the reply.
> Just to be clear, it's not that we added custom
> routines to
> SOCKUTILR4.
> It is that we are using the version from SOCKTUT
> (your Sockets
> Tutorial) and it has additional procedures over
> the version from
> LIBHTTP.
> If you choose to keep SOCKUTILR4 in LIBHTTP could
> you make it the same
> version that is in SOCKTUT? This will help with
> the update problem
> you mention.
> Brian J. Garland
> Vermont Information Processing, Inc.
> brian@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Scott Klement <sk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: ftpapi-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 09/30/2006 02:01 AM
>
> Please respond to
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the FTPAPI mailing list. To unsubscribe, please go to:
http://www.scottklement.com/mailman/listinfo/ftpapi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------