Hi,

I think my issue is getting confused.

On the page: http://localhost:8181/cxf

the URLs generated here are 0.0.0.0 when it's bound to 0.0.0.0.  i would
expect either localhost or a public IP.

John


On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Neil Franken <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> 0.0.0.0 means to bind on all network interfaces on the server. It is
> commonly known as the Chuck Norris IP address. Leaving it on this is more
> than adequate.\
>
> Regards
> Neil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John D. Ament [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013 3:54 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Binding WSDL to IP address of the server
>
> Hi Freeman
>
> This isn't what I'm seeing.  When I visit http://localhost:8181/cxf and
> see the service list, the URL of the service listed there is 0.0.0.0 rather
> than localhost.  Is there a setting I need to change the URL shown here?
>
> John
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Freeman Fang <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I assume you are using CXF endpoint, then the address in wsdl is the
> > address you used to access the cxf service. So if you use localhost to
> > access the service, you see localhost in wsdl address, if you use real
> > ip, then you see real ip in the wsdl address, it already get
> > substituted automatically.
> > -------------
> > Freeman(Yue) Fang
> >
> > Red Hat, Inc.
> > FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> > Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/
> > Twitter: freemanfang
> > Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com
> > http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042
> > weibo: @Freeman小屋
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2013-8-2, at 上午12:05, John D. Ament wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Is it possible to bind a WSDL dynamically to the running IP address
> > > of a server?  Right now, when I get the service list it includes
> > > localhost for the IP of the WSDL, but ideally I'd like it to show
> > > the IP of the server
> > as
> > > I requested it.  Typically there's a param that can be substituted.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > John
> >
> >
>
>

Reply via email to