FYI sorted out on IRC, see http://dev.rectang.com/logs/codehaus/%23cxf
Cheers, Eoghan > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 06 September 2007 16:56 > To: [email protected] > Subject: WS-Addressing Issues > > I'm having some issues getting WS-A to work for me. > > First, it seems that adding the WSAddressingFeature isn't > enough to get WS-A to be turned on. You have to set the > "usingAddressingAdvisory" > property which is cryptic at best. Why isn't adding the > interceptors to the client enough for it to start sending > WS-A headers? Why would we want it turned off by default? > > Second, I'm running the WS-A sample and it appears to be > sending two soap messages to the client - one partial > response and one decoupled message. From the logs: > > INFO: Outbound Message > -------------------------------------- > <soap:Envelope > xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/";><soap:H > eader><MessageID > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";>urn:uuid:9bd2e4c4 > -cca0-478d-bc81-a57e92b9c1c4</MessageID><To > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";>http://localhost: > 9000/SoapContext/SoapPort</To><ReplyTo > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";><Address>http://l > ocalhost:9990/decoupled_endpoint</Address></ReplyTo><FaultTo > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";><Address>http://l > ocalhost:9990/decoupled_endpoint</Address></FaultTo></soap:Hea > der><soap:Body><sayHi > xmlns="http://apache.org/hello_world_soap_http/types"/></soap: > Body></soap:Envelope> > -------------------------------------- > ... > INFO: Inbound Message > -------------------------------------- > Headers: {null=[HTTP/1.1 202 Accepted], connection=[close], > SOAPAction=[""], Server=[Jetty(6.1.5)], > content-type=[text/xml; charset=utf-8]} > Message: > <soap:Envelope > xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/";><soap:H > eader><MessageID > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";>urn:uuid:d15fa093 > -3951-47f5-86ac-bd616f8d57d7</MessageID><To > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";>http://www.w3.org > /2005/08/addressing/anonymous</To><ReplyTo > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";><Address>http://w > ww.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none</Address></ReplyTo></soap:He > ader><soap:Body /></soap:Envelope> > -------------------------------------- > ... > INFO: Inbound Message > -------------------------------------- > Encoding: UTF-8 > Headers: {Host=[localhost:9990], User-Agent=[Java/1.5.0_10], > connection=[keep-alive], SOAPAction=[""], > transfer-encoding=[chunked], Pragma=[no-cache], > content-type=[text/xml; charset=UTF-8], > Cache-Control=[no-cache], Accept=[*]} > Message: > <soap:Envelope > xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/";><soap:H > eader><MessageID > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";>urn:uuid:9e2a0281 > -dcea-42b5-b5a9-a89e265d40de</MessageID><To > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";>http://localhost: > 9990/decoupled_endpoint</To><RelatesTo > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";>urn:uuid:9bd2e4c4 > -cca0-478d-bc81-a57e92b9c1c4</RelatesTo></soap:Header><soap:Bo > dy><sayHiResponse > xmlns="http://apache.org/hello_world_soap_http/types";><respons > eType>Bonjour</responseType></sayHiResponse></soap:Body></soap > :Envelope> > -------------------------------------- > > > Is this correct? I thought the first http response should be > empty and > we should only be sending the second message. > > Last, I'm trying to write a different HTTP conduit and > destination. I.e. > one that uses Mule. I think this issue applies to our JBI > transport as > well. In both the JBI & Mule cases (or any other ESB), you > want to send > messages to the bus instead of to our transport layer. The > bus can then > send out the messages via it's transport layer. The issue is > this - our > decoupled endpoint stuff is baked into the transport, which > it needs to > be rebaked into the Mule/JBI transports as well. Its not > exactly trivial > to do either, I'm still struggling to figure it out. But to expand my > previous points on why decoupling in the transport is a BAD > thing here > are some other reasons: > - Setting up a decoupled endpoint for CXF will be completely > different > depending on whether or not your in an ESB environment or not. In one > case I have to use <http:conduit> to set the DecoupledEndpoint, in > another <mule:conduit>, in another <jbi:conduit> (which > doesn't support > decoupled interactions right now), etc. It'd be much much > better to have > this configuration associated with the client. > - Now any ESB transport needs to take care of setting the appropriate > HTTP statuses on the messages. > - I have to copy the InteroposedMessageObserver & decoupled > Destination > logic to my conduit > - I'm probably going to end up with a bunch of if(http) logic in my > transport to handle back channel stuff. > Am I missing something here? This seems way harder than it > should be... > Have any of the servicemix people looked at this yet? > > Regards, > - Dan > > -- > Dan Diephouse > MuleSource > http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com/blog > ---------------------------- IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland) Registered Number: 171387 Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
