On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:37:24 AM Jason Pell wrote: > Daniel, > > Will you merge this to 2.5.x branch? So that it goes into the > 2.5.3-SNAPSHOT?
Just did. That said, not sure if the snapshots are deploying right now due to issues with the Apache Jenkins setup. :-( Dan > > I am building the trunk version for today, but will downgrade to > 2.5.3-SNAPSHOT as soon as possible > > Thanks again > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Jason Pell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Found it - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-4110 > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Jason Pell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Also in meantime can you direct me to the area of code you found the > >> issue I would like to know this so I can do my own investigation if I > >> have any further challenges > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> On Feb 15, 2012, at 5:18, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:48:23 AM Daniel Kulp wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:29:06 PM Jason Pell wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> It does not seem to work for much other than SERVICE. I have not > >>>>> tested all combinations so far, but so far all I have managed to have > >>>>> working is SERVICE. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am now trying to associate Policy with one operation, while another > >>>>> operation has no ws-security requirements at all. I have tried > >>>>> BINDING_OPERATION, PORT_TYPE_OPERATION, neither of which work. > >>>>> > >>>>> Am certainly looking forward to your analysis. If you could point me > >>>>> in the right direction of the code I would need to look at as I am > >>>>> interested to understand this area of cxf as well > >>>> > >>>> Honestly, not quite sure where to look yet. The fact that the policy > >>>> is > >>>> properly exposed in the WSDL (via the ?wsdl url) shows that the policy > >>>> is > >>>> loaded fine and attached into the service model. The runtime SHOULD be > >>>> using that just fine as it should be exactly the same as if the policy > >>>> was > >>>> loaded from a real WSDL. Thus, I'm not sure what would cause it yet. > >>>> Probably will need to dig through the effective policy calculation > >>>> stuff > >>>> for both the wsdl first and non-wsdl cases to see where the policies > >>>> are > >>>> coming from and see what may be different. No idea yet. Again, > >>>> very > >>>> strange to see the policies in the wsdl, but no have them take affect. > >>>> > >>>> :-( > >>> > >>> OK. Figured this out. The policies and policy references themselves > >>> were > >>> properly added to the service model and thus showed up properly in the > >>> generated WSDL. However, the "Description" (that holds the policies) > >>> that is stored on the root Service object was not set on the endpoint > >>> info or binding info and thus the references were not able to be > >>> resolved. Just setting the description on those would fix this > >>> problem. > >>> > >>> However, this is poor design. Those objects have a handle to the > >>> Service > >>> object. Thus, they don't need a copy of the description. They can just > >>> call service.getDescription to get it. Thus, we won't need to make > >>> sure we set it in the future. > >>> > >>> Running tests with that now. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Daniel Kulp > >>> [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
