Maybe, this is solvable with using the right annotation. I will try out a small test case. regards, aki
2011/5/27 Aki Yoshida <[email protected]>: > Hi, > I looked into this stuff sometime ago and noticed that the operation > names used by the dispatcher side and the provider side are generic > ones ( ***invoke) but yet they are slightly different. Because of > this, I saw the operation look-up was failing as you mentioned. And > there are probably a few other things missing. I think we need a minor > change in the code to make it work. I can look into it again. Please > create a jira ticket. > Thanks. > > Regards, aki > > 2011/5/26 Gunnar Morling <[email protected]>: >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to use CXF's coloc feature >> (http://cxf.apache.org/docs/coloc-feature.html). Things work fine when >> using a "real" client for accessing the service (meaning the generated >> service/port classes for my service). >> >> But I'm running into trouble when using a dynamic client, namely a >> JAX-WS dispatch client. The cause seems to be that in >> org.apache.cxf.binding.coloc.ColocOutInterceptor#isColocated() the >> name of the invoked operation is compared against the names hosted by >> the co-located server port. As the invoked method name is a generic >> one in the dispatch scenario ("invoke" actually) this comparison fails >> and instead of the coloc transport the standard transport using HTTP >> is performed. >> >> Is there anything I could do about this? If JAX-WS dispatch based >> clients are generally not supported, is there any other way to use the >> coloc transport in a generic manner? Or is this just an issue, for >> which I should open up a feature request in JIRA? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Gunnar >> >
