Hi Sergey,
I think we should split the whole thing into two topics (issues/PRs):
1.) SourceGenerator for contract-first-only with 100% portability
This should be supported for people who only practice contract first and
don't care of the WadlGenerator and simply want to use clean
simple/nested
Perhaps you can start with supporting a not null only ?
If a parameter @required is set (this can be enabled on the WADL to Java
if BeanVal NotNull is set) then SourceGenerator can add this annotation
back if its -beanValidation is set.
The only restriction is that please use String class names
Hi Johannes
Option 2 already works in the WADL to Java case. The only problem with
it, as discussed earlier, is that WADL grammar is meant to represent the
data representations, but SourceGenerator does not enforce it right now
and referring from the parameters to the schema elements is still
Hi,
We are trying to get MTOM and WS-Security working together using CXF. Both
client and service are using cxf 3.0.6.
The data that needs to be sent as attachment has the
"application/octect-stream" expectedContentTypes in the wsdl:
And we enable mtom for both client
I have a case of camel using the CXF bean to call soap endpoints. We set up
these bean at run time in the spring and call them through camel. This works
perfectely. I am not able to create a run time conduit in Spring for the cxf
run time to pick up. Because camel is abstracted to use the CxfEndpoi
Hi Sergey,
Thx for the analysis.
Regarding the WadlGenerator I'd also prefer option 1 opposing to option
2 (without the original idea available).
Regarding the SourceGenerator I think it should support clean parameter
type references in any way. So even if we follow option 1, we would need
Hi Johannes
I've looked through various messages and pull requests.
One approach was to insert incomplete schema fragments into wadl:param
with the implicit understanding it was meant to create BeanVal
parameters and I felt quite uncomfortable about pursuing that particular
path.
The last i
Hi Johannes
We'll try to enable the access this week, will update you once it is done
Thanks, Sergey
On 06/11/16 21:58, J. Fiala wrote:
Hi Sergey,
Should we add a link to the docs to make people aware what they can do
with the Swagger contract/SwaggerFeature at the client side?
If you like, I
