On Friday 26 November 2010 5:56:27 am Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
> Relating to this same issue of the WS-RM status, does the current code
> handle interactions with WS-Security? In particular, I'm wondering what
> happens if you're using timestamps with signing - does the WS-RM code
> generate a new ti
Relating to this same issue of the WS-RM status, does the current code
handle interactions with WS-Security? In particular, I'm wondering what
happens if you're using timestamps with signing - does the WS-RM code
generate a new timestamp (and signature) when it resends the message, or
just resend t
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Monday 15 November 2010 12:05:56 pm Scott Came wrote:
>> Thanks, Daniel.
>> What about the potential to leverage Sandesha or the implementation in
>> Metro? My research has indicated that some time ago there was discussion
>> about trying t
f anyone from the "couple of companies" you mention has
> interest, please let me know. :) --Scott
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 8:46 AM
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Cc: Scott Came
> Sub
ention has interest, please let
me know. :)
--Scott
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 8:46 AM
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Cc: Scott Came
Subject: Re: Status of WS-RM
On Monday 15 November 2010 11:33:53 am Scott Came wrote:
> Has
On Monday 15 November 2010 11:33:53 am Scott Came wrote:
> Has anyone on the dev list looked into implementing WS-RM 1.1 since this
> discussion on the list last June?
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-dev/200906.mbox/%3C4A35E210.5
> 030...@redhat.com%3e I'm guessing not, since the rel
Has anyone on the dev list looked into implementing WS-RM 1.1 since this
discussion on the list last June?
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-dev/200906.mbox/%3c4a35e210.5030...@redhat.com%3e
I'm guessing not, since the related JIRA issue is still "unassigned":
https://issues.apache.or
