Dan Smith wrote:
Can you explain why the XML was wrong and why this fixes it?
Sure. I used -d to see what xml was actually going across for the filter. The create xml started off like this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <CIM CIMVERSION="2.0" DTDVERSION="2.0"> <MESSAGE ID="4711" PROTOCOLVERSION="1.0"> <SIMPLEREQ> <IMETHODCALL NAME="CreateInstance"> <LOCALNAMESPACEPATH> <NAMESPACE NAME="root"/> <NAMESPACE NAME="PG_InterOp"/> </LOCALNAMESPACEPATH> <IPARAMVALUE NAME="NewInstance"> <INSTANCE CLASSNAME="CIM_IndicationFilter"> And then the corresponding delete xml started off like this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <CIM CIMVERSION="2.0" DTDVERSION="2.0"> <MESSAGE ID="4711" PROTOCOLVERSION="1.0"> <SIMPLEREQ> <IMETHODCALL NAME="DeleteInstance"> <LOCALNAMESPACEPATH> <NAMESPACE NAME="root"/> <NAMESPACE NAME="PG_InterOp"/> </LOCALNAMESPACEPATH> <IPARAMVALUE NAME="InstanceName"> <INSTANCENAME CLASSNAME="CIM_IndicationFilterCIMXML"> The classnames don't match up, so when we make the delete request the CIMOM can't find the right instance to delete. Both handler and subscription have the classnames properly matched, so they get created and deleted properly. Now the one other thing I noticed is that handler and subscription have the CIMXML suffix on both create and delete, so maybe the more correct solution is to add it to the filter create, not remove it from the filter delete. Do we have anything official that can answer that for us? -- -Jay