Hi Dan,

Thank you for your fast reply.

Daniel  Kulp wrote
> 
> The error makes it sound like there is an XML issue. Can you post the xml 
> configuration ?
Here is the xml configuration file, which is pretty light (and works in
2.1.4) :
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<beans xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";
  xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
  xmlns:sec="http://cxf.apache.org/configuration/security";
  xmlns:http="http://cxf.apache.org/transports/http/configuration";
  xmlns:jaxws="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/jaxws";
  xmlns:wsa="http://cxf.apache.org/ws/addressing";
  xmlns:cxf="http://cxf.apache.org/core";
  
   xsi:schemaLocation="http://cxf.apache.org/core
                                   http://cxf.apache.org/schemas/core.xsd  
                                           
http://cxf.apache.org/configuration/security
                                           
http://cxf.apache.org/schemas/configuration/security.xsd
                                           
http://cxf.apache.org/transports/http/configuration
                                           
http://cxf.apache.org/schemas/configuration/http-conf.xsd
                                           
http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans
                                           
http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-beans-2.0.xsd";>


        <http:conduit name="*.http-conduit">
                  <http:client AutoRedirect="true" Connection="Keep-Alive"
ConnectionTimeout="6000" ReceiveTimeout="6000" CacheControl="no-cache"
AllowChunking="false" />
        </http:conduit>
</beans>


Daniel  Kulp wrote
> 
> You can also try adding the namespaces needed to the http-conduit element.
> That MAY help.
> 
What's the namespaces you are talking about ? I don't see any mention of
namespace needed in the stackstrace.


Daniel  Kulp wrote
> It almost sounds like you aren't picking up woodstox, but I'm not really
> sure. 2.1.9 was still long enough ago that I'm not sure what the state of
> everything was. I'd definitely suggest up 
> dating to 2.5.0 if possible and trying to see if that fixes things.
> 
OK, I'll try it, hoping there will not be migration problem

Thanks, matiou

--
View this message in context: 
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Upgrading-from-2-1-4-to-2-1-9-tp5009968p5016781.html
Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply via email to