Hi William, I just have one question about it , if we want to use the simple front end API to create the endpoint, how do you switch the JaxWsProxyFactoryBean to ProxyFactoryBean?
Besides that , I'm OK for your proposal. Willem On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, William Tam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW, I am in favor of #2 and to document that SEI must be an interface. > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, William Tam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Currently, users can insert jaxws handlers to endpoint by doing > > something like this. > > > > <cxf:cxfEndpoint id="routerEndpoint" > > address="http://localhost:8092/PersonService/"; > > serviceClass="org.apache.camel.wsdl_first.Person" > > endpointName="person:soap" > > serviceName="person:PersonService" > > wsdlURL="person.wsdl" > > xmlns:person="http://camel.apache.org/wsdl-first";> > > > > <cxf:handlers> > > <ref bean="fromEndpointJaxwsHandler"/> > > </cxf:handlers> > > </cxf:cxfEndpoint> > > > > It only works on the CxfConsumer side but not on the CxfProducer side. > > It is because CXF server and client factory bean are not exactly > > "symmetrical". I can think of two approaches to fix it. > > > > 1) Mimic the Jaxws Handler stuff in CXF > > ( > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/rt/frontend/jaxws/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/jaxws/JaxWsProxyFactoryBean.java > ) > > and add it to Camel's CxfClientFactoryBean > > ( > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/camel/trunk/components/camel-cxf/src/main/java/org/apache/camel/component/cxf/invoker/CxfClientFactoryBean.java > ). > > It could mean more maintenance work in Camel. > > > > 2) In CxfProducer, switching from using CXF's > > ClientFactoryBean/JaxWsClientFactoryBean to > > ClientProxyFactoryBean/JaxWsProxyFactoryBean. The latter seems to be > > more frequently used inside CXF. The JaxWsProxyFactoryBean can build > > the handler chain and does all the low level work. The only downside > > that I see is, the SEI passed to the factory bean must be an interface > > (cannot not be a class). > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > William > > >
