Would be nice to keep the number of dependencies down, but yeah, that
would be feasible.
I wonder why I didn't think of that.
2007/10/25, Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Can't you just use an XFire client instead?
>
> Glen
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 25.10.2007, 16:59 +0200 schrieb Christian Vest
> Hansen:
> > I have an XFire 1.2.6 web service that I wan't to write a CXF client
> > for, but when I invoke operations on this service CXF throws
> > exceptions with messages like "Found element
> > {http://www.unwire.dk}vats but could not find matching RPC/Literal
> > part" - this is because the XFire web service dosn't comply with the
> > WS-I Basic Profile, and qualifies the SOAP response message parts with
> > a namespace when it shouldn't.
> >
> > Is there any way to lax the CXF strictness? I'de prefer it if I didn't
> > have to touch the XFire code, but if that's the only way to go about
> > this then I'de still like to hear any proposed solutions.
> >
> > Otherwise I see two other options:
> > + scrap CXF for this particular service and do a HttpClient + StAX
> > type of client, or..
> > + convince the project manager that now is the right time to port the
> > service in question (which is unlikely)
> >
>
>
--
Venlig hilsen / Kind regards,
Christian Vest Hansen.
