Any timeline on this?
-Original Message-
From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyoz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:29 AM
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Enum as one of the query params in wadl
Hi - that is not properly supported right now - will get it fixed
Cheers, S
I prefer option #1.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> I just wanted to get users opinions on:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3741
>
>
> Basically, right now, we ship just the 6 individual jetty jars that we need
> for the various CXF features (and we likely sho
On Friday, August 19, 2011 3:07:50 PM Jesse Pangburn wrote:
> Hi Aki,
> I'm REALLY new to CXF so I don't quite understand your answer. Could you
> explain what sort of configuration option you mean, and what shape it would
> take? In that case, how would the code "find the option and set the acti
On Friday, August 19, 2011 3:34:53 PM Jesse Pangburn wrote:
> It seems that the ServiceImpl code is copying over stuff from the following
> items (all this stuff is near the 620 line): features, interceptors,
> conduit selector
>
> It seems to do nothing with the following:
> address, bus, propert
Ok, got this. The answer is in WSHandlerConstants.USE_REQ_SIG_CERT
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Penmatsa, Vinay [mailto:vinay.penma...@sap.com]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 3:39 PM
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Encrypt response with client cert
Hi,
Is it possible with CXF to sen
It seems that the ServiceImpl code is copying over stuff from the following
items (all this stuff is near the 620 line):
features, interceptors, conduit selector
It seems to do nothing with the following:
address, bus, properties, handlers
I don't know which of these things it SHOULD do. To my
> Should it be validated or the only option is
> adding an interceptor to do it?
If mapped to an JAXB object parameter on the method, it SHOULD be validated.
The SoapHeaderInterceptor uses the same readers/databinding as the normal body
stuff and thus should have the schema set in it. If it
Hi Aki,
I'm REALLY new to CXF so I don't quite understand your answer. Could you
explain what sort of configuration option you mean, and what shape it would
take? In that case, how would the code "find the option and set the action
accordingly"?
Thanks,
Jesse
-Original Message-
From:
On Friday, August 19, 2011 11:47:26 AM Penmatsa, Vinay wrote:
> Hi Colm,
> I think setting the flag to false is a work around for now, but this should
> be considered a bug. Does it make sense?
If it's generating the SecurityTokenReference without the tokenType attribute,
then yes, that is a bug.
When I debug into ServiceImpl line 610, it gets down to
org.apache.cxf.configuration.spring.ConfigurerImpl and line 151 throws:
org.springframework.beans.factory.NoSuchBeanDefinitionException: No bean named
'{urn:ihe:iti:xds-b:2007}DocumentRegistry_Port_Soap12.jaxws-client.proxyFactory'
is defin
I prefer option #1
Quoting David Karlsen :
I preget #1 which gives full control.
Den 19. aug. 2011 20:01 skrev "Daniel Kulp" følgende:
I just wanted to get users opinions on:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3741
Basically, right now, we ship just the 6 individual jetty jars that
I preget #1 which gives full control.
Den 19. aug. 2011 20:01 skrev "Daniel Kulp" følgende:
>
> I just wanted to get users opinions on:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3741
>
>
> Basically, right now, we ship just the 6 individual jetty jars that we
need
> for the various CXF features
+1 for #2. I wrote the Jira ;)
Gary
On Aug 19, 2011, at 14:01, "Daniel Kulp" wrote:
>
> I just wanted to get users opinions on:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3741
>
>
> Basically, right now, we ship just the 6 individual jetty jars that we need
> for the various CXF features (
+1 for #2.
It makes things easy for the majority and doesn't involve too much
pain for people who want to be more selective.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> I just wanted to get users opinions on:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3741
>
>
> Basically, right no
I just wanted to get users opinions on:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3741
Basically, right now, we ship just the 6 individual jetty jars that we need
for the various CXF features (and we likely should ship the jetty mgmt jar as
well to make 7). These 6 jars are defined as deps i
I just committed a fix to trunk (pulling back to 2.4.x now as well). When
you get a chance, can you give it a try to see if it fixes your issue?
Threading things like these are hard to really test.
Dan
On Friday, August 19, 2011 2:32:03 PM xuhb wrote:
> Maybe it is becuase before chain.wa
On Friday, August 19, 2011 5:24:30 PM Blue Diamond wrote:
> *Please let me know if this issue was resolved in later versions of 2.3.x.*
>
> I am facing a socket issue with CXF 2.3.0. My service request takes around
> 10 minutes so I have set my socket time out on the client side. But when the
> se
On Friday, August 19, 2011 2:32:03 PM xuhb wrote:
> Maybe it is becuase before chain.wait() return, the sync of chain will be
> re-locked, so it will block untill chain.resume() finished;
Thanks for the test case. There definitely is an issue here. At this
point, the thread has already synch
Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 18, 2011 5:57:02 AM Evangelina wrote:
>> Hi! Thanks for answering.
>> I'm pretty new to CXF so please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the
>> 'mustUnderstand' attribute specifies if a header entry is mandatory or
>> not?
>> From what I saw in the co
Hi,
I think we should just provide a configuration option to either enable
or disable this operation determination code in DispathImpl,
independently of whether the addressing feature is engaged. In this
way, you can decide whether to let this code find the operation and
set the action accordingly
Hi Colm,
I think setting the flag to false is a work around for now, but this should be
considered a bug. Does it make sense?
-Vinay
-Original Message-
From: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:cohei...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:10 AM
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: I
And the issue looks to be related to this:
Aug 19, 2011 3:46:02 PM org.apache.cxf.phase.PhaseInterceptorChain
doDefaultLogging
WARNING: Interceptor for {
http://ns.ca.com/catalyst/node}NodeX509#{http://www.w3.org/2010/08/ws-tra}Gethas
thrown exception, unwinding now
org.apache.cxf.binding.soap.S
Hi,
I think you are right. Although the http 202 response is written back
to the response by the calling thread before this thread going into
the block and therefore the client should not be blocked as it can
read the http 202 response, the calling thread itself may get blocked
(not being able to c
*Please let me know if this issue was resolved in later versions of 2.3.x.*
I am facing a socket issue with CXF 2.3.0. My service request takes around
10 minutes so I have set my socket time out on the client side. But when the
service sends response, I see the following exception on the client si
Are you feeding SOAPUI the wsdl produced by CXF with Aegis? If so,
then please submit a JIRA with a reproducible test case.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:09 AM, jamesnmullen wrote:
> I have a webservice which is written Java first, this was initially using the
> JAXB binding but we found we needed m
I have a webservice which is written Java first, this was initially using the
JAXB binding but we found we needed more control over the minOccurs etc so
decided to switch to using the Aegis data binding.
I am testing this webservice with SOAPUI, when using the JAXB data binding
everything works ok
26 matches
Mail list logo
