It have been a while, but I just found out that I solved the issue by
disabling Mtom:
Then it works... ;)
Any idea why this solved the issue ? (I am trying CXF 3.1.4 currently).
And how is it possible to solve this with mtom enabled ?
The issue was:
The Webservice response contained
ook at using version 3.0
> > after the client dead lines.
> >
> > If you could point me in the right direction by looking at the
> > config/errors below, I would appreciate that.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Ed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
ginal Message-
> From: Ed Bras [mailto:z...@debrasjes.com]
> Sent: woensdag 10 september 2014 18:23
> To: cohei...@apache.org
> Cc: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Cont: upgrading cxf client to 3.0.1
>
> @Colm: thanks:
>
>
>
> > No I meant the o
... 58 common frames omitted
-------
> -Original Message-
> From: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:cohei...@apache.org]
> Sent: woensdag 10 september 2014 10:41
> To: Ed Bras
> Cc: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Cont: upgrading cxf client to 3.0.1
.aanleveren(Unknown Source) ~[na:na]
>
> ...
> Caused by: com.ctc.wstx.exc.WstxUnexpectedCharException: Unexpected
> character '-' (code 45) in prolog; expected '<'
> at [row,col {unknown-source}]: [3,1]
> at
> com.ctc.wstx.sr.StreamScanner.
-
> From: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:cohei...@apache.org]
> Sent: woensdag 10 september 2014 10:41
> To: Ed Bras
> Cc: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Cont: upgrading cxf client to 3.0.1
>
> > > However WS-SecurityPolicy "SignedParts" should meet your
>
org]
> > Sent: dinsdag 9 september 2014 19:47
> > To: users@cxf.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Cont: upgrading cxf client to 3.0.1
> >
> > OPTIONAL_SIGNATURE_PARTS only works with the older approach of
> > specifying "actions" for security - it doesn'
ordpress.com/2010/09/15/signing-ws-addressing-headers-in-apache-cxf/
> -Original Message-
> From: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:cohei...@apache.org]
> Sent: dinsdag 9 september 2014 19:47
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Cont: upgrading cxf client to 3.0.1
>
>
OPTIONAL_SIGNATURE_PARTS only works with the older approach of specifying
"actions" for security - it doesn't work with WS-SecurityPolicy. However
WS-SecurityPolicy "SignedParts" should meet your requirements. With regards
to your other question, I think you need to create a testcase that
reproduce
