+1
Andrei
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 5:34 PM Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Colm pointed out to me that we also need a 3.2.11 release. Since that’s
> also been 2 months and we fixed 11 JIRA’s, it makes sense.
>
> It’s been over 2 months since 3.3.3 was released. We fixed 20 JIRAS.
>
> Staging area:
> h
+1
Andrei
-Original Message-
From: Colm O hEigeartaigh
Sent: Mittwoch, 23. Oktober 2019 13:01
To: CXF Dev List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 3.3.4
Warning! External email. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
any links.
+1.
Colm.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:38 AM
Hi Dmitry,
Thanks for your efforts and investigations, I appreciate your contribution.
Could you describe a bit more what do you mean under
- "it is not possible to change path"
- "issue with providing realm name as path param"
- "there is no any flexibility with custom functionality"
?
Update me
RS filters (per request/response)
>
> Why not just have one ContainerRequestFilter that determines what to do
> dynamically and just does it? This way, you don't have to do the interceptor
> chain gymnastics.
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 12:02 PM Andrei Shakirin
> wrote:
>
user.
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andriy Redko [mailto:drr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 5. April 2019 02:02
> To: Andrei Shakirin; dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Dynamic JAX-RS filters (per request/response)
>
> Hi Andrei,
>
> Understood
019 23:28
> To: Andrei Shakirin; dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Dynamic JAX-RS filters (per request/response)
>
> Hi Andrei,
>
> I would be curious to understand a bit regarding the use case(s). Is it going
> to
> be driven by presence of some headers fe? Or something
Hi,
Currently JAX-RS filters are bound to exchange endpoint in
ClientProviderFactory and ServerProviderFactory and filter chain is always the
same for all processing messages.
In some use cases (security) it would be useful to activate filters dynamically
on message level, that different reques
Hi,
Any ideas why the Jenkins build was failed?
Look like infrastructure issue for me:
https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/CXF/job/CXF-3.1.x/1405/console
java.io.IOException: Failed to extract
/home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/CXF-3.1.x/rt/frontend/js/transfer of 2
files
at hud
+1
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017 00:23
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Apache CXF 3.1.12 and 3.0.14
>
> It’s been over 2 months since the last release. We’ve fixed over 50 JIRA’s for
> 3.1.12. Thus,
: Mittwoch, 26. April 2017 11:26
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [cxf-7239] is error below this vm issue?
>
> Version 2.20 of the surefire plugin is out - is the error fixed with this?
>
> Colm.
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Andrei Shakirin
> wrote:
>
&
+1
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:cohei...@apache.org]
> Sent: Dienstag, 25. April 2017 14:32
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] - Release Apache CXF Fediz 1.4.0
>
> This is a vote to release Apache CXF Fediz 1.4.0.
>
> Artifacts:
> https://repo
Here is some detail information about the problem:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/surefire-forked-vm-failed-td5858900.html
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrei Shakirin [mailto:ashaki...@talend.com]
> Sent: Dienstag, 25. April 2017 15:27
> To: dev@cx
Hi,
Problem is caused by surefire plugin Version 2.19.X.
Have to be fixed by using 2.18.
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Assi [mailto:java2010...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Montag, 17. April 2017 03:28
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [cxf-7239] is error below this vm issue
Hi Andriy,
+1 from my side!
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andriy Redko [mailto:drr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Samstag, 7. Januar 2017 14:38
> To: dev@
> Subject: Swagger 1.5.12 and Karaf
>
> Hey guys,
>
> We have bumped Swagger version recently to 1.5.12 in 3.1.10-SNAPSHOT,
Hi Sergei and Colm,
I am going to make a small refactoring in STSTokenOutInterceptor.
The idea is to move AuthMode enumeration, AuthParams class and
configureBasicSTSClient method into STSUtils and reuse them from there in
STSTokenOutInterceptor.
The AuthMode and AuthParams will be first marked
gards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrei Shakirin [mailto:ashaki...@talend.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 23. September 2016 18:09
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Discuss] Move spring and blueprint support out of cxf-core
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Regarding Ka
Hi Christian,
Regarding Karaf4 and OSGi: as Guillaume says the Spring DM isn't supported
anymore.
I am not sure how many users still use CXF + Spring in OSGi.
Do you think it will be an option just to remove optional spring imports from
the Manifest (for example using maven bundle plugin)?
Rega
+1
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Ma [mailto:mail2ji...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 11:01
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 3.0.10 and 3.1.7
>
> +1
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Alessio Soldano
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>
+1
> -Original Message-
> From: Freeman Fang [mailto:freeman.f...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 6. Juli 2016 04:29
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] - Release Apache CXF Build Utils 3.2.1 take2
>
> +1
>
> Thanks!
> －
> Freeman(Yue) Fang
>
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSo
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Schneider [mailto:cschneider...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Schneider
> Sent: Donnerstag, 31. März 2016 15:46
> To: CXF Dev List
> Subject: [VOTE] - Release Apache CXF DOSGi 1.8.0
>
> This is a vote to release Apache CXF DOSGi 1.
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 23. März 2016 21:48
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF 3.1.6/3.0.9
>
>
> It’s been awhile since the last set of releases and we’ve fixed over 45 JIRA’s
> (some of which may be ne
+1,
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:cohei...@apache.org]
> Sent: Dienstag, 15. März 2016 11:56
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] - Release Apache CXF Build Utils 3.2.0
>
> This is a vote to release Apache CXF Build Utils 3.2.0. It just c
Hi Francesco,
I am really happy to see you in our team!
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:ilgro...@apache.org]
> Sent: Samstag, 28. November 2015 11:31
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Introducing myself
>
> Hi all,
> just a quick e-mail to
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Samstag, 31. Oktober 2015 20:53
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF 2.7.18/3.0.7/3.1.4
>
>
> This is a vote to release a bunch of patches for CXF.
>
> Staging areas:
> https://repository.a
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 17. September 2015 15:54
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE]Apache CXF 3.1.3
>
> It’s been about 6 weeks since the 3.1.2 release and we’ve fixed a bunch of
> things that some users h
+1
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Dienstag, 28. Juli 2015 20:13
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF 3.0.6 and 3.1.2
>
> This is a vote to release 3.0.6 and 3.1.2. We’ve fixed over 40 issues for
> 3.1.2.
>
> Staging areas:
> https:
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Juli 2015 23:41
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE]xjc-utils 3.0.4
>
> This is a vote for the XJC-Utils 3.0.4. This is mostly to release the extra
> fixes
> we need for the bug
Hi Yossi,
Sorry for huge delay with a response.
Indeed, KMIP is currently widely adopted in industry as XKMS. Supporting XKMS
was the pragmatic solution for CXF, because it provide enough functionality and
it is quite easy and quick to implement. As Sergei said, will be nice to
provide additio
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Freitag, 5. Juni 2015 22:50
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF 3.1.1
>
> 3.1.1 fixes a bunch of issues in 3.1.0 that would prevent it from working
> properly in several normal use cases, pa
+1
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Freitag, 1. Mai 2015 19:30
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF 3.1.0
>
> It’s been a year since the 3.0.0 release and we’ve made a bunch of significant
> improvements. We really need to get this o
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2015 02:54
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF 3.0.4/2.7.15
>
> This is a vote to release 3.0.4 and 2.7.15. It’s been about 2 months since
> the
> last release and
y. The JAXRS client interceptor will care about request/renew SAML
assertion (either from STS server or from cache) and set it to the current
message.
Regards,
Andrei.
>
> Thanks, Sergey
>
>
> On 25/01/15 16:52, Andrei Shakirin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am wor
Hi,
I am working on scenario, where CXF JAX-RS service requests SAML token from STS.
Currently is quite easy to validate SAML against STS in JAX-RS Service and
issue SAML internally using SamlCallbackHandler:
http://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-rs-saml.html.
Unfortunately there is no easy way to requ
Hi,
I guess the problem is that other neethi version (not 3.0.3) is loaded from
Websphere application server.
Could you please experiment with classloader options (try parent_last)?
This link could help a bit more:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17568330/incompatible-neethi-jar-with-was-7
+1
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Dezember 2014 17:20
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF 2.7.14/3.0.3
>
> This is a vote to release CXF 2.7.14 and 3.0.3. These versions fix a bunch
> of
> bugs users
Exactly, the message "Caused by: java.rmi.server.ExportException: Port already
in use: 1099; nested exception is:
java.net.BindException: Address already in use" shows some port
conflicts.
Either you have more than one Karaf container running or this port is used by
other software on y
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:cohei...@apache.org]
> Sent: Freitag, 17. Oktober 2014 12:52
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] - Release Apache CXF Fediz 1.1.2
>
> This is a vote to release Apache CXF Fediz 1.1.2.
>
> Issues fixed:
>
> http
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Oktober 2014 19:31
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF 2.7.13/3.0.2
>
>
> This is a vote to release CXF 2.7.13 and 3.0.2.There are over 90 JIRA
> issues
> resolved for 3.0
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2014 22:00
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF 2.6.16
>
> This is a vote to release CXF 2.6.16. This release is JUST to fix the
> problems
> running 2.6.15 with Java5
Hi Jan,
Sergei is developing this topic very active in CXF now.
CXF has a basic engine for JWS/JWE/JWT.
You can look into JAXRSJweJwsTest, it is quite cool :)
Here is some related Jira issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-5954
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-5944
Regards,
Yeah, I incline to leave it out of scope as well.
If there are no objections, I will update JMS documentation in this way.
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Schneider
> Sent: Freitag, 26. September 2014 17:43
> To: Andrei Shakirin; dev@cxf.apache.org
&
Destination
correspondingly.
It is possible to override any URL JMS property, if necessary.
Any thoughts regarding (2): unsubscribing from durable subscriptions?
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrei Shakirin [mailto:ashaki...@talend.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 25.
Hi,
I am analysing possible extension of ClientId JMS configuration using JMS
compliant style (through URL).
1. ClientId.
Use case: the CXF client and service communicating using JMS Topic and durable
subscription.
Both client and service using ClientId and durable subscription name in order
t
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Freitag, 19. September 2014 15:43
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF XJC Utils 3.0.2
>
>
> This is a vote to release the 3.0.2 version of the XJC Utils.There are two
> major changes:
>
now, could you just add them to the current osgi/itests? Until we have
> much better dynamic port allocation things for the pax-exam things, I'd like
> to
> try and avoid having two modules that would be running pax-exam based tests
> at the same time.
>
> Dan
>
>
&
Hi,
I would like to add some basic OSGi tests for JAX-RS implementation based on
pax exam.
Thinking about best location for these tests:
A) trunk/osgi/itests-jaxrs
trunk/osgi/itests-jaxws (currently itests)
trunk/osgi/itests-felix
or
B) add subprojects under itests:
trunk/osgi/it
Hi Iris,
This restriction was already discussed in
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Getting-hold-of-JAX-RS-MessageContext-tt5745816.html
.
Yes, it makes sense to relax / drop the restriction.
Could you please create an issue for this?
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: iris
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Dienstag, 15. Juli 2014 21:58
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF 2.6.15/2.7.12/3.0.1
>
>
> This is a vote to release the latest patch releases on all three branches.
>
> There are over 80
Hi Christian,
I find your ideas great, IMO it will be the step in the right direction. The
JAAS helps to cleanly decouple authentication/authorization logic from business
code.
Some thoughts regarding that:
1. Authentication
Authentication scenarios can be collected in two large groups:
I have discovered the restriction of FactoryBeanListener in one customer use
case.
This scenario dynamically downloads WS-Policies from custom ServiceRegistry and
applies them to the CXF client and service.
Problem: it seems that there is not reliable way to determine that event
ENDPOINT_CREATE
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Freeman Fang [mailto:freeman.f...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2014 05:07
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] CXF XJC Utils 3.0.1 and buildutils 3.0.0
>
> +1
> －
> Freeman(Yue) Fang
>
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource
+1,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:cohei...@apache.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Juni 2014 12:43
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] - Release Apache CXF Fediz 1.0.4
>
> This is a vote to release Apache CXF Fediz 1.0.4. It fixes a couple of minor
>
+1
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:cohei...@apache.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Juni 2014 12:45
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] - Release Apache CXF Fediz 1.1.1
>
> This is a vote to release Apache CXF Fediz 1.1.1. It upgrades to the latest
> CX
Hi Sergei,
I am also a bit concerned about autocomplete feature actively used in IDEs
(mentioned by Dan). Keeping unsupported element in schema can be a bit
confusing because of that.
Therefore if handling the client in the old namespace via the transformation
feature will be too complicated in
+1
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Freitag, 30. Mai 2014 21:10
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF XJC Utils 3.0.0
>
>
> This is a vote to release a 3.0.0 version of our XJC utils.
>
> This fixes a bunch of issues that I've
ink it is not
> a big
> issue if we mention it in the release notes and provide the working examples
> on
> trunk soon.
>
> Christian
>
>
> Am 17.05.2014 12:53, schrieb Andrei Shakirin:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Don't think that is really critical for
Hi,
Don't think that is really critical for release, have discovered some
regressions in samples/jms (at least on my environment):
- jms_spec_demo: OK
- jms_queue, jms_pubsub and java_first_jms are throwing
"InvocationTargetException: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: connection
Factory may n
Hi,
I am trying to get working the JMS message redelivery in CXF 2.7.X and
CXF.3.0.0.
Use case: CXF client sends JMS message to the service one-way operation.
Business implementation of oneWay method throws runtime exception.
Expected: message will be redelivered according RedeliveryPolicy and f
Hi Mandy,
You can provide your transport components either as git pull request or as a
patch (attached to corresponded Jira Issue).
In any case it make sense to create Jira Issue for that to keep the process
traceable.
As far as it is a new feature I would apply this to the master. Short
docum
Hi Sergei,
> -Original Message-
> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyoz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 10:53
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Repackaging of cxf-api to remove Spring dependencies
>
> Hi Andrei
> On 02/05/14 09:37, Andrei Sh
Hi Dan,
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2014 23:49
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Repackaging of cxf-api to remove Spring dependencies
>
>
> On May 1, 2014, at 3:22 PM, Andrei Shakir
Hi Dan,
I was not really happy with the problem described by Mandy:
to have some API classes available for more than one application (Destination,
Conduit and AbstractTransportFactory in that case) we need to share whole
Spring dependencies as well.
Therefore I find the idea to separate spring
9:40
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org; Andrei Shakirin
> Subject: Re: Extended support for wsdl11external WS-PolicyAttachments
> references
>
>
> No objections here. I think we just implemented the few basic places to meet
> whatever test case we were shooting for with the old
Great job, Christian!
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Schneider [mailto:cschneider...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Schneider
> Sent: Dienstag, 15. April 2014 10:54
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: JTA support for JMS Transport in CXF 3.0
>
> I just finished the JTA su
Hi Christian,
Some comments inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Schneider [mailto:cschneider...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Schneider
> Sent: Donnerstag, 10. April 2014 10:39
> To: CXF Dev
> Subject: JTA support for JMS Transport in CXF 3.0
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am curren
Hi,
I do not see a link to your sequence diagram, was it forgotten?
From my perspective you can evaluate WS-Addressing decoupled responses for your
case. They works very similar to JMS, but using SOAP HTTP + WSA.
See details in my blog: http://ashakirin-cxf-async.blogspot.de/ and on CXF
page: h
Hi,
Currently CXF supports only limited set of references for external
WS-PolicyAttachments (wsa:EndpointReferenceType):
http://www.w3.org/ns/ws-policy";
xmlns:test="http://x.y.z/Assertions";>
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";>
http://x.y.z/Greeter
Hi,
I am redirecting the question into user list, if you don't mind.
I think OAuth 2.0 client credentials could be elegant solution for this case
(https://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-rs-oauth2.html).
You will be able to authenticate client first time with HTTP basic credentials
against OAuth Authe
+1,
Andrei
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 9. April 2014 05:44
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF 2.6.14/2.7.11 - take 2
>
>
>
> It's been 2 months since the last releases... This is a vote to release
> 2.7.11 and
> 2.6.
+1
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sonntag, 6. April 2014 18:35
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] CXF 2.6.14/2.7.11
>
>
> It's been 2 months since the last releases... This is a vote to release
> 2.7.11 and
> 2.6.14.
Hi,
For me javadocs will be reasonable for APIs staying stable between major
releases.
Users can rely to use this in custom code.
Such classes are mostly located in cxf-api, my +1 to restrict distribution to
cxf-api javadoc (despite of fact that there are also some useful javadocs in
cxf-core)
+1 to Java 6
+1 to a 2.6 final
Have no any knowledge regarding unfinished GSOC, but seems to make sense as
well.
Regards,
Andrei.
ion). This requires an interface for the security interceptor to
> know which interceptor can handle a request or which security standard is
> supported by an interceptor.
> >
> > IMHO, I'd prefer option 2 as exception handling is a bit more tricky in
> > option
> 1 and t
+1
Happy to get 3.0.0-m2 released.
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Samstag, 15. Februar 2014 03:02
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Apache CXF 3.0.0-milestone2
>
>
> This is a vote to release 3.0.0-milestone2
>
> This has a b
Hi Sergei,
Do you mean the full support of JSR-299 including stereotypes, qualifiers,
alternatives or just support of @Inject annotation for some CXF security,
message, context objects?
The first seems to be a bit involved, however the second sounds reasonable for
me.
Regards,
Andrei.
> -
> Cheers, Sergey
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > Oli
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Sergey Beryozkin [sberyoz...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 06 February 2014 13:23
> > To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> > Subject:
Hi Sergei,
For me is also interesting to have a simple way to configure REST service with
authentication schemas it accepts.
For example one service will accept only SAML, second service accepts either
Basic Auths or SAML, depending what client sent.
For SOAP services that is quite easy to do us
+1
Regards,
Andrei
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 04:09
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.7.10
>
>
> This is a vote to release 2.7.10. This is mostly to fix the JAX-WS 2.2
> problems in
> the 2
+1 for all three points.
Regarding replacing the spring, I am a bit concerned regarding the efforts, I
thought it is not trivial thing to do.
Let me know if you need any help, especially in transport or system tests
topics.
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Schnei
+1
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 29. Januar 2014 23:04
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.7.9/2.6.12
>
>
>
> We've resolved over 60 issues since 2.7.8 and almost 40 ported back to
> 2.6.12.
>
>
> List of issue
Hi Dan,
My (non-binding) +1.
Would like to double check if my update for CXF-5512 discussed in
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Re-svn-commit-r1560703-in-cxf-branches-2-7-x-fixes-api-src-main-java-org-apache-cxf-service-invoker--td5739028.html
is enough for JBoss and TomEE folks (strictly speaki
Have updated in a way suggested by Dan, however strongly said compatibility is
still broken:
if users override old AbstarctInvoker.adjustMethodAndParams() and just call
existing AbstarctInvoker.invoke() method, the overriding
adjustMethodAndParams() will not be invoked anymore (because invoke()
Yep, will update that.
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Alessio Soldano [mailto:asold...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 23. Januar 2014 16:46
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Cc: Daniel Kulp; ashaki...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1560703 - in /cxf/branches/2.7.x-fixes:
> >
> > The downside is for the files that have existed since 2.1, a "git
> > blame" and log and such will only go back to 2.1. Blame will list me
> > as the person for any lines that have existed since 2.1 (since I did
> > the "release:prepare" for 2.1 and all the commits prior to that are
> > squ
+1 [non-binding]
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Schneider [mailto:cschneider...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Schneider
> Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2014 15:47
> To: CXF Dev
> Subject: [VOTE] Apache DOSGi 1.6.0 Release
>
> The Apache CXF DOSGi sub project is the Reference
Hi,
I have seen the request from one user to provide coloc feature
(http://cxf.apache.org/docs/coloc-feature.html ) for JAX-RS services (currently
is supported for JAX-WS only).
IMO will be nice if both implementations consequentially support this feature.
Any thoughts regarding that?
Regards,
Hi,
I see two possible cases here:
a) If you would like to keep the standard SOAP Fault and just customize the
faultcode, faultstring, details, the following interceptor can be configured in
out fault chain:
public class CustomSoapFaultInterceptor extends
AbstractPhaseInterceptor {
+1 (non-binding)
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Dienstag, 26. November 2013 18:27
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] 3.0.0-milestone1 distributions...
>
>
> This is a vote for the actually distributions to go along with the 3.0
Hi Aki,
Thanks for spotting and fixing this.
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Aki Yoshida [mailto:elak...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 21. November 2013 16:34
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.7.8/2.6.11
>
> +1
> tested OK with cxf-2.7.8 with cur
+1 (non-binding)
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 20. November 2013 22:29
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Apache CXF 3.0.0-milestone1
>
>
> We've done quite a lot of work toward 3.0.0. While we still have work to do,
> I thi
+1 (non-binding)
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 20. November 2013 17:21
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.7.8/2.6.11
>
>
> We've resolved over 75 issues since 2.7.7 and almost 35 ported back to
> 2.6.11.
>
>
>
case if
WSDL contract has no action attribute or has empty one. Property must be
commented as breaking WS-I Basic Profile 1.2 compatibility.
2. Change validation of Soap 1.2 action, if my interpretation of WS-Basic
Profile 2.0 is correct. Than Soap 1.2 messages do not need
allowNonMatchingActionToDefault pr
-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Freitag, 15. November 2013 16:32
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org; Andrei Shakirin
> Subject: Re: Checking of SOAP action in SoapActionInInterceptor: regression
> in proxy services
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Andrei Shakir
Or we can define a
> special matchAny kind of action that can be used in opinfo?
>
> 2013/11/13 Andrei Shakirin :
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a bit regression under 2.7.7 because of changes in
> > SoapActionInInterceptor
> > (https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/c
Hi,
I have a bit regression under 2.7.7 because of changes in
SoapActionInInterceptor
(https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/cxf?cs=1368559 )
SoapActionInInterceptor requires that the SOAPAction exactly matches to the
service operation.
The problem is that there are some scenarios where the
+1 (non binding)
> -Original Message-
> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyoz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Montag, 4. November 2013 23:21
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF Fediz 1.1.0
>
> +1
>
> Thanks, Sergey
> On 04/11/13 22:04, Oliver Wulff wrote:
> > It's been a lon
Hi Dan,
One more related question: what happens if required bus was created before my
BusLifecycleListener is activated?
Is there any way to get a list of all existing Buses?
Regards,
Andrei.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrei Shakirin [mailto:ashaki...@talend.com]
> Sent: D
Hi,
Looking into HTTPConduit assertor interface implementation:
public boolean canAssert(QName type) {
return new ClientPolicyCalculator().equals(type);
}
ClientPolicyCalculator.java contains only:
public boolean equals(HTTPClientPolicy p1, HTTPClientPolicy p2)
so it doe
+1 (non binding)
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 18. September 2013 19:09
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.7.7/2.6.10 - take 2
>
>
>
> We've resolved over 90 issues since 2.7.6 and almost 50 ported back to
> 2.6
+1 (non binding)
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Samstag, 14. September 2013 14:37
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.7.7/2.6.10
>
>
>
> We've resolved over 90 issues since 2.7.6 and almost 50 ported back to
> 2.6.10.
>
>
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
