Status: Open
Status: Answered
Status: Closed
Status: Duplicate

ECL.ws Problem with StartAction

0
Posted Feb 12 by Mike Gibson.

We have recently upgraded to 9.2 I have used the process activator to expose an action.

The login works fine but whenever I attempt a StartAction() I get the ever helpful "See inner exception for more detail error".

 

Further examining of the event logs revels the following warning

"Failed to find the assembly Metastorm.Engine.Resources.resources, Version=9.0.0.0"

 

Apparently after upgrading to 9.2 something is holding onto some old references.

 

Has anyone seen this?

 

5 Answers

0
BEST ANSWER: As chosen by the author.

A little more info:

The erorr is ocuring in ECLWSProxy.cs that is created by the process activator around the following line of code:

 

return base.Channel.StartAction(session, folderId, mapName, actionName, commitNow, actionData);

 

 

It seems like a reference did not get updated when we upgraded to 9.2:

 

 


0
BEST ANSWER: As chosen by the author.

And for reference, this environment is a clean 9.2.1.0 install (well, clean 9.2.0 and upgrade to 9.2.1.0) as the stepped upgrade path from 9.1.2.2 -> 9.2.0.0 -> 9.2.1.0 always failed.


0
BEST ANSWER: As chosen by the author.

Are you all still having this issue?  We are also getting this error in elog as well. 

 

Failed to execute deployed method 'WhenActionCompleted', using entity 'uaInitialize'.
The formatter threw an exception while trying to deserialize the message: Error in deserializing body of request message for operation 'eworkXmlProcessing'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 202, position 34.

 

There is another post that mentions the fix - updating the client config file for the web service, but it doesn't seem to be working.

 

I also can't tell if it's related.


0
BEST ANSWER: As chosen by the author.

> ——————–
>
> BMellert wrote:
>
>
> And for reference, this environment is a clean 9.2.1.0 install (well, clean 9.2.0 and upgrade to 9.2.1.0) as the stepped upgrade path from 9.1.2.2 -> 9.2.0.0 -> 9.2.1.0 always failed.
>
> ——————–

Hmm, looks like a prior post of mine is missing as this one appears out of context with the rest of the chain.  Actually, I'm thinking its in the wrong subject chain all together.  Not sure what happened there.


0
BEST ANSWER: As chosen by the author.

lol - thanks - thought you all were part of the same team or something.


 You have subscribed and will receive email notifications of updates to this topic. To unsubscribe, uncheck the checkbox.

Statistics

Related categories

Your answer

To leave an answer, please sign in.