222"
}
]
If only one entry is found in the collection it's not constructing an array
,
"Phonenumber": {
"Type": "Mobile",
"Phone": "555"
}
Do we have any workaround to construct in the standard way(By defa
han asking for download in the popup window.
Is there any possible solutions to achieve this ?
Could any one please tell us the approach to resolve these issues?
Regards,
Ganesh.
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Not-able-to-receive-inline-JSON-response-for-Mul
Okay.. Thanks a lot Sergey .. As you said we will use two post handlers to
resolve the issue...
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Ajax-form-submit-for-Multipart-contetnt-type-along-with-other-form-fields-tp5589560p5591218.html
Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list arch
ide.
Could you please tell us whether can we follow the above approach or any
other solution to resolve the issue.
Regards,
Ganesh
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Ajax-form-submit-for-Maultipart-contetnt-type-along-with-other-form-fields-tp5589560p5589560.html
+1
Thanks,
Bharath
On Thursday, June 3, 2010, Johan Edstrom wrote:
> +1 Non important person.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This is a vote to release CXF versions 2.0.13, 2.1.10, and 2.2.9. The main
>>> reason for the releases is to fix a potential security vulnerability that
>>> will
>>> be disclosed soon
+1
Thanks,
Bharath
On 03-Dec-2009, at 9:18 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Cyrille has submitted several patches to various management and
logging
related things for CXF starting way back in February. I think he's
up to 7
or 8 submitted patches.He's also been hanging around the user
list
+1
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> Alessio has been one of the primary driving forces behind getting CXF to be
> a
> certified JAX-WS provider for JBoss. As part of that work, he has
> identified
> several bugs/issues in CXF and has provided patches for many of them. H
+1
-Bharath
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Kulp
Sent: 05 June 2009 21:07
To: CXF Dev
Subject: End 2.0.x support/releases?
This may be a "thorny" issue, but I'd like to bring it up and start a
discussion.
July 4th will mark the 2 year anniversary of the CXF 2.0 release. Since
Here is my +1
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> This is a vote to release CXF 2.2.2
>
> With only 23 JIRA's resolved for 2.2.2, this doesn't have as many "fixes"
> as
> many of the previous patch releases. HOWEVER, there is a one major new
> feature: the JAX-RS 1.0 TCK
Good one :-D
ConcurrentHashMap Javadoc says -
*"A hash table supporting full concurrency of retrievals and adjustable
expected concurrency for updates.
This class is fully interoperable with Hashtable in programs that rely on
its thread safety but not on its synchronization details." *
So I gues
>>you mean, cxf for generating stubs using run time. But here what do you
mean
>>by run time?
>From your description it looks like you need to invoke a web service
deployed somewhere. So here the runtime would mean the client runtime -
which would take care creating and sending SOAP requests to yo
+1
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> As you all know we've been looking for people to help us with our JAXRS
> project for a while. We've had some great feedback
>
> and a number of patches submitted from our JAXRS users which helped us
> tremendously. Andrzej Michalec (A
+1
-Bharath
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> (The issue with the J2EE has been corrected. This is a new vote on the
> new
> artifacts)
>
>
> This is a vote to release CXF 2.1.4
>
> With a longer than normal cycle, a LOT of stuff is in this. Over 88 JIRA
> issues are re
+1
-Bharath
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> (The issue with the J2EE has been corrected. This is a new vote on the
> new
> artifacts)
>
>
> Since it's been about 4 months since the 2.0.9 release, I decided to go
> ahead
> and do a 2.0.10 release along with 2.1.4.
>
> Th
+1.
The memory footprint looks much lesser :-)
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> This is a vote to release CXF 2.1.4
>
> With a longer than normal cycle, a LOT of stuff is in this. Over 88 JIRA
> issues are resolved for 2.1.3 which is quite a bit of work.
>
> List of issues
+1
-Bharath
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> Since it's been about 4 months since the 2.0.9 release, I decided to go
> ahead
> and do a 2.0.10 release along with 2.1.4.
>
> This is a vote to release CXF 2.0.10
>
> Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhanc
+1.
I personally have seen this many times. Many operations in WSDL which don't
work. This will be a good feature I guess. May be we can have an option to
retain the old behavior.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>> Okay, thanks.
>>
>> No part
Yes running without NIO might narrow down..
I saw a related bug[1], but closed saying Not replicable.
1. http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6208845
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 October 2008 2:19:44 pm anoopPrasad wrote:
Dan,
Looks like even Anoop says the heap size is constant. I guess he is talking
about an increase in the OS process memory.
Isn't it?
-Bharath
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm honestly no seeing this on my linux box with the latest code. I hit
I have verified the same test on Windows with the same JDK. My memory usage
looks stable.
Could anyone try on Solaris?
Anoop,
Have you tried the test on any non-solaris OS?
//The memory of the server continously increases from ~90M to ~350M which
never comes down.
How did you check this?
Thanks,
+1
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Willem Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> This is a vote to release CXF 2.0.9
>
> Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
> have been done compared to the 2.0.9 release. Over 37
Hi Hubert,
Is the leak replicable? Is is that the memory was just high or it was a
leak? Did you see an OOM?
Will be of great help if you can send the test case.
Also let me know which CXF version you are using?
Thanks,
Bharath
IBM - India Software Labs
http://thoughts.bharathganesh.com
On Tue,
response is sent over a separate server->client connection.
>
> /Eoghan
>
>
>
> Bharath Ganesh wrote:
>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1156
>>
>> Look like WS-RM makes more sense for aysncronous invocation and one way
>> invocation (quite s
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1156
Look like WS-RM makes more sense for aysncronous invocation and one way
invocation (quite similar to JMS reliability), rather than a standard
request-response pattern.
So the above issue wont be a very valid case. Am I right?
I can work on this. Let me get started by setting up the CXF JMS transport
and play a bit with it.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Eoghan Glynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -1 to decommissioning the CXF JMS transport.
>
> If there are perceived shortcomings in the CXF JMS transport config, let
Here is my +1
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> This is a vote to release CXF 2.0.8
>
> Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that have
> been done compared to the 2.0.8 re
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>BTW, Fred, I'm reading "SOA Security" by publisher Manning right now, it
> says
> >>WSS4J is for Axis 1.x while Rampart is for Axis 2.0. That doesn't seem
> >>correct--isn't WSS4J used with both Axis1 and Axis2? Or is i
+1
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> This is a vote to release CXF 2.0.7
>
> Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
> have been done compared to the 2.0.7 release. Ove
+1
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> This is a vote to release CXF 2.1.1
>
> Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
> have been done compared to the 2.1 release. Over 74
Dan,
I have verified the memory leak fixes by profiling JAX-WS server and client
runtime. Also the complete Java EE TCK (JAX-WS 2.0 on CXF 2.0.7 snapshot)
runs in a single run with around 200M heap size. All looks OK.
Thanks
Bharath
http://thoughts.bharathganesh.com
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7
Dan,
To properly verify the memory leak fixes, can we have a 2.0.7 snapshot with
the new fixes? I will be able to the as well run the Java EE TCK on that.
Thanks
Bharath
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I mentioned that I was thinking of doing the 2.1.
daemon thread which will access this map periodically to force stale entry
expunging.
Will commit these changes on 2.1 branch. DanK hope you will apply on 2.0.7
also.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Bharath Ganesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes we would need to iterate through the
DLManagerImpl) for each of the deployed application. Also, everything
> is deployed upfront at startup. They aren't ever undeployed/redeployed.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Bharath Ganesh wrote:
>
> On a related note -
>> There seems to be one
suggestions?
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Bharath Ganesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I figured out a memory leak at WSDLManagerImpl schemaCacheMap.
> The schemaCacheMap here has a weak key - WSDLDefinition and value
> ServiceSchemaInfo. A key,value pair is inserted into this map whi
y big though so
> that may be acceptable.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> On May 31, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Bharath Ganesh wrote:
>
> I figured out a memory leak at WSDLManagerImpl schemaCacheMap.
>> The schemaCacheMap here has a weak key - WSDLDefinition and value
>> ServiceSchem
I figured out a memory leak at WSDLManagerImpl schemaCacheMap.
The schemaCacheMap here has a weak key - WSDLDefinition and value
ServiceSchemaInfo. A key,value pair is inserted into this map while building
a service. The entry is never explicitly removed from this map. Since the
map is a WeakHashMa
I recently ran the Java EE TCK on CXF 2.0.6 and found some memory issues.
There seems to be a leak during an endpoint stop - leading to an OOM as TCK
deploys and undeploys lot of applications. I am doing some profiling now and
will get back soon.
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAI
ingPhaseInterceptorChain or something that could perform worse.That
> said, creating the chains via a factory or something could have just as much
> of a performance impact or something. Not really sure.
>
> I might need to think about this some more though and could easily be
>
I was thinking of a way to register listeners with CXF interceptors. The use
case I ran into was:
I wanted some timing diagnostics to determine the time certain interceptors
were taking to process the message. Ideally I would register a
TimingListener with such interceptors. Another use case can be
39 matches
Mail list logo
