> On Feb 18, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Erich Duda <dudaer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > thank you for your comments. I fixed mentioned issues, see comments bellow. > > Dňa 13.02.2015 o 21:23 Daniel Kulp napísal(a): >>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 3:03 PM, dudae<dudaer...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Do you check the implementation? Could you give me some feedback please? >>> Thank you. >> Just took a quick look at this… I completely forgot about this. >> >> There are a couple of obvious things that “jump out” that are very >> quick/easy to fix. Mostly removing the @author tags (highly discouraged at >> Apache) and there are a few files that need the Apache header added (the XML >> files). There are also several warnings when pulled into Eclipse, but >> those aren’t big deals at all. The other issue would be the use of the >> System.out for all the messages during the tests causing a lot of output on >> the console. Again, easy fix and I understand why it’s there during >> development. > > Should I fixed all PMD warnings? For example, "A method should have only one > exit point, and that should be the last statement in the method". I think > that more exit points (return statements) do some methods more readable.
No. The PMD that is run when you type “mvn” on the command line is the important one. Ideally, they’d both be the same but the current eclipse plugin has a bunch of issues. I have a few pull requests open with the PMD folks that should get the eclipse pmd plugin to be more usable for CXF. > >> The main thing that jumps out at me as being problematic is the use of the >> JAX-WS handlers (org.apache.cxf.ws.transfer.shared.handlers). Those cause >> problems as we have to completely break streaming to build the SOAPMessage >> that is passed into those. I’d very strongly encourage flipping those to >> normal CXF SOAP interceptors. They seem to only operate on SOAP headers >> so they can call the getHeaders method on the SOAPMessage passed into the >> interceptor and pretty much allow the body to remain as is. (likely >> streaming) That said, I’m not sure those are even needed. CXF’s >> MAPCodec.java already gathers the headers that have the ReferenceParameter >> attribute and adds them to the “To” EndpointReference. You may need to >> experiment a bit more to see if they are really getting through (and if not, >> figure out why). Likewise, on the client, you could directly add them to >> the client RequestContext via the normal way of adding headers: >> >> http://cxf.apache.org/faq.html#FAQ-HowcanIaddsoapheaderstotherequest/response? >> >> and avoid the JAX-WS handler/interceptor entirely. > > The ReferenceParameter is possible to send through the request context. When > I tried to send it through the standard headers, it isn't getting through > because MAPCodec removes all WS-Addressing headers (see discardMAPs method). The discardMAPs method only discards headers that are in the WS-Addressing namespace. It shouldn’t discard the elements that are not in the ws-addressing namespace. If I add a factory.getFeatures().add(new LoggingFeature()) to your code (or use wireshark), I’m not seeing the reference params being written out at all with the new code. That kind of bothers me as I believe they should. Hmm…. Can you double check that the soap headers you are expecting to be there are really there? > Few more CXF things: >> In XLSTResourceTransformer and TransferTools and a few other places, you are >> creating DocumentBuilderFactory/DocumentBuilder and a Transformer and such. >> You really should use the utility methods we have in StaxUtils, XMLUtils, >> and XSLTUtils for much of that. We try to make sure all the XML parsing >> and processing goes through those utilities so that we can control various >> aspects to prevent various attacks (like entity expansion attacks). > > I removed TransferTools. I use for > - parsing, serializing XML - StaxUtils > - creating elements - DOMUtils.createDocument().createElement > - transforming - XSLTUtils > - xpath - XPathUtils > > However in FragmentDialectLanguageXPath10 I don't use the XPathUtils, because > I need to recognize, when the XPath throw the exception and when not. See > https://www.java.net/node/681793 OK. That works. Looks much better. I think if we just double check the reference params things, we’re likely good to go with it. -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
