Jiang, Ning (Willem) schrieb:
You can name the configuration file as what as you want and the default
configuration file name is cxf.xml. The default location that CXF will look for
a configuration for is "/cxf.xml" on the class path. If you wish to override
this location, you can specify a command line property:
-Dcxf.config.file=some_other_config.xml. If you want to use the url as the
configuration location, you can specify a command line property:
-Dcxf.config.file.url=config_file_url.
Additionally you can specify a different location if you create the cxf
bus yourself.
SpringBeanFactory.createBus("mycxf.xml")
2.) Is there a reason why we allow configuration in the WSDL[1] in
addition to the configuration file? I think configuration file alone is
good (just like it is for SOAP over HTTP). Some of the properties that
would go in the WSDL, such as connectionUserName and connectionPassword,
don't seem appropriate for a WSDL--a WSDL, after all, is meant to be
read by lots of people.
I agree with you that passwords do not belong in the WSDL. The problem
is that there is no worldwide consens about how to write a url for a jms
address.
The queuename alone is not enough as it is only unambiguous in the
context of a jms server. So a jms address must always contain some
identification for the jms server and the queue.
<Willem> I agree with you.
CXF's JMS transport can get the address information from WSDL and
Configuration file. If I remember right the configuration file can
Override the WSDL's extension. </Willem>
I mention this second point also because I think Dan K. said he would
like us to have the option of using the Spring JMS abstraction[3] for
configuration--which sounds good but maintaining three separate
configuration methods appears overly burdensome. I wonder if
WSDL-configuration of SOAP over JMS should be deprecated then. FWIW,
Axis2 does not do JMS configuration in the WSDL[4]. Metro does a little
bit[5], but just trivially in the soap:address section of the
wsdl:service section.
We should not completely drop the address support in wsdls. Instead I
think it would be great to support the upcoming standard for soap/jms
WSDLs. The only thing I don´t like about it is that it is java centric.
It would be better to have a standard for soap / messaging.
http://www.infoq.com/news/2007/01/soap-jmi-standard
<Willem> I also think we should support the Spring JMS template, which
could be more wildly used :), and I think adrian.corcoran are working
n it now </Willem>
Spring JMS Templates would be great. At least I would like to have the
possibility to define the ConnectionFactory outside the address and only
reference it there.
Greetings
Christian
--
Christian Schneider
---
http://www.liquid-reality.de
