Thanks for your reply Jari, I guess that's a possibility although I kind of consider the "?wsdl" as standard practice. I would, however, like the original wsdl to be returned with the exception of the IP address and the port which I would like to contain the actual deployed values.
I don't deploy a web application, I only publish web services using CXF. Otherwise, I guess "rolling my own" would be an option. It seems to me there must be a standard - CXF supported - way of doing this. /Bengt 2011/10/1 Jari Fredriksson <ja...@iki.fi> > 1.10.2011 11:08, Bengt Rodehav kirjoitti: > > Hello, > > > > We're using CXF 2.4.2 to provide a web service API to a legacy > application. > > We are in the process of increasing the quality of the API in a number of > > ways. > > > > First, we are typing the interface more strictly. E g instead of > specifying > > that a value is a string, we say that it's exactly one character long and > > also enumerate it's valid values. We also try to add documentation to the > > WSDL. The following is a typical case: > > > > <xs:simpleType name="MyType"> > > <xs:annotation> > > <xs:documentation> > > A = ... > > B = ... > > C = ... > > </xs:documentation> > > </xs:annotation> > > <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> > > <xs:pattern value="A|B|C" /> > > </xs:restriction> > > </xs:simpleType> > > > > However, even if we feed the above WSDL to CXF (we use WSDL first), in > > runtime when asking for the WSDL (using ...?wsdl), the above information > is > > gone. The type is simply a string and the documentation is gone. > > > > Why is this? Is it a bug? What is best practice regarding strict > interfaces > > and documentation using CXF? > > > > /Bengt > > > > I consider best practice to deliver the WSDL and schemas as is. Not via > ?wsdl > > I have a wsdl subfolder in my web app for that, and it works. > > But that is just me. > > -- > > Your motives for doing whatever good deed you may have in mind will be > misinterpreted by somebody. > >
