Nope, cxf-2.0.2-incubator.jar. None of the smaller jars. I do see two copies of commons-logging. That's another story altogether.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Freeman Fang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 11:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Beans > > Benson, > > Sorry,JettyHTTPServerEngine is class in Cxf, not from jetty, so it > would be two cxf version in your classpath, should be two > cxf-rt-transport-http-jetty*.jar . > > Best Regards > > Freeman > > On 10/2/07, Benson Margulies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Freeman, > > > > Are you sure? I've been through the classpath in eclipse three times, > > and all I see is 6.1.5. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Freeman Fang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 11:01 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: Beans > > > > > > Hi Benson, > > > For your first question > > > The linkageError shows you have two different versin Jetty jars. What > > > we used in cxf should be 6.1.5. I am not sure if it's the root cause > > > of your problem, but we should avoid this. > > > > > > Freeman > > > > > > On 10/2/07, Benson Margulies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 1: > > > > > > > > At FINE log traffic, when I do detailed HTTP configuration: I get > > this > > > > buried on the bottom of a stack trace. Is it important? > > > > > > > > Caused by: java.lang.LinkageError: duplicate class definition: > > > > > > org/apache/cxf/transports/http_jetty/configuration/JettyHTTPServerEngine > > > > FactoryConfigType$JaxbAccessP8? > > > > at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) > > > > at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:620) > > > > at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:465) > > > > ... 62 more > > > > > > > > 2: > > > > > > > > I'm apparently pretty confused by how CXF and spring coexist. When > > is an > > > > app supposed to import the various CXF files from META-INF, and when > > > > does CXF decide to look for cxf.xml for itself, instead? The doc > > only > > > > discusses the later case. > > > > > > > > > >
