Actually, I think there is a bug with using the methods on the impl instead of the interface. I ran into something very similar today while writing a testcase for CXF-655. I just didn't have time to investigate as CXF-655 was troublesome enough. I'll dig into it more tomorrow.
Dan On Wednesday 18 July 2007 18:10, Dan Diephouse wrote: > Hi Stuart, > Did you specify a @WebService(endpointInterface="...YourInterface") on > the implementation class? You're using the JAX-WS frontend and per the > JAX-WS spec, thats how its supposed to work :-) > > Cheers, > - Dan > > On 7/18/07, Stuart Bingë <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > We've been using XFire (specifically its SOAP transport) together > > with JSR-181 > > annotations for some time now in our internal Spring-based web > > services (hosted in Tomcat), and are now in the process of looking > > to upgrade to CXF > > as part of a general systems upgrade. The web services are > > "java-first", where we code to a SEI and then rely on XFire to > > generate the WSDL as appropriate. In addition, the SOAP binding used > > is RPC/Literal for interoperability with PHP clients. > > > > After following the "Writing a service with Spring" article on the > > CXF site > > (http://cwiki.apache.org/CXF20DOC/writing-a-service-with-spring.html > >), as well as attempting the basic "HelloWorld" applet that the > > article describes > > (i.e. separate from our existing environment/services), I've > > discovered some > > strange behaviour that wasn't present with XFire. > > > > When exposing an endpoint via <jaxws:endpoint ... />, the generated > > WSDL appears to be coming from the implementation class rather than > > the service interface -- i.e. getters and setters for > > implementation-specific properties > > are included in the WSDL. > > Is this the expected behaviour with <jaxws:endpoint />? If so, what > other > > > methods are available/recommended for exposing an endpoint via an > > interface > > rather than an implementation object? > > This can be solved with @WebMethod(ignore = true) annotations on the > > > implementation class, but obviously this isn't ideal and shouldn't > > be needed > > in the first place. We'd like to continue just exposing the > > interface as the > > service contract and then be able to implement the service in > > whatever way we > > deem fit. > > > > Any pointers would be greatly appreciated! > > > > Cheers, > > -- > > Stuart Bingë > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > >__ > > > > "Complinet Ltd is registered in England. Registered office at > > Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames Street, London EC4V 3BJ. Company > > number 3170722. VAT No. 749 324 021. > > Complinet Inc is a corporation registered in Delaware, USA." > > > > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security > > System. -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
