> I agree, this would be a good thing to have. I don't know > that setHeaders is the right place as this could be used in a > REST binding too. > > I would outline two other goals as we figure something out: > 1. Get rid of Message.getAttachmentMimeType 2. Unify the > mechanism with the Attachment class's methods for getting headers > > As SAAJ always scares me a little (for instance MimeHeaders > uses a Vector according to the constructor?), I would be more > prone to use using a Map and putting it in the Message - > message.get(MIME_HEADERS)
Yep, a named property of type Map<Sting, List<String>> makes sense. > and then also declaring a > getMimeHeaders() on Attachment. What do you think? What would be a typical use case for specifying *different* MIME headers on an attachement versus the associated message? /Eoghan > - Dan > > Glynn, Eoghan wrote: > > >Folks, > > > >In the old SOAP binding we used > >javax.xml.soap.SOAPMessage.getMimeHeaders() as a bucket for > >transport-specific headers, so for example the WS-A layer could > >propogate the wsa:Action to the transport as the SOAPAction header. > > > >We no longer seem to do this in the new SOAP binding as a matter of > >course. The closest analogue I can find is in the > AttachmentTest unit > >test, but this hijacks the HTTP_REQUEST_HEADERS property as > opposed to > >using a separate SOAP-specific headers map. > > > >Is it an oversight that we don't current do something like > >org.apache.cxf.soap.SoapMessage.setHeaders(MimeHeaders.class, > >mimeHeaders) in one of the SOAP interceptors? > > > >Cheers, > >Eoghan > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Dan Diephouse > (616) 971-2053 > Envoi Solutions LLC > http://netzooid.com > > >
