I don't see any problem removing the check, but I'm not really sure why the check is there.
Looking in the logs, this check was added way way back when Dan Diephouse, Jeff Genender, Jarek Gawor, and myself were pushing hard to get the JAX-WS 2.0 TCK to pass (and for Geronimo to use CXF for JAX-WS). Thus, my gut feeling is that something in the TCK required it at one point. I don't know if some test in the current TCK's require it. I haven't had the time to run the TCK with your change in place to see what, if anything, might break. Dan On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Yanmin Sheng <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > Thanks for your quick response. I know it is a implementation > specific manner (e.g., lazy and eager validation ). But actualy I can > send out the message in CXF by removing the portInfo check in getPort > by setting the endpoint address in BindingProvider. If we throw > exception early, then I do not think I have chance to set address info > in BindingProvider. > QName serviceName = new > QName("http://shengym.com/MyBusiness/","MTOM11Service";); > QName portName = new QName("http://shengym.com/MyBusiness";, > "MTOM11Port"); > // Setup the necessary JAX-WS artifacts > Service svc = Service.create(serviceName); > port = svc.getPort(portName, MTOMInterface.class); > > // Set the target URL > bp = (BindingProvider) port; > Map<String, Object> requestCtx = bp.getRequestContext(); > > requestCtx.put(BindingProvider.ENDPOINT_ADDRESS_PROPERTY,mtom11URL); > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Willem jiang <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> If you just call the Service svc = Service.create(serviceName); >> CXF know nothing about how to build the ServiceModel as it's only a >> ServiceName. >> When you call >> port = svc.getPort(portName, MTOMInterface.class); >> It can build the ServiceModel according to the MTOMInterface.class, but it >> doesn't know anything about the endpoint address. >> If we don't through the exception here, user will think the port object is >> OK for sending invocation, and it is hard for him to track the issue in the >> run time. >> You still need to call the svc.addPort for it. >> >> BTW, it's typical usage of JAXWS API, I don't think there is anything wrong >> with it. >> >> -- >> Willem Jiang >> >> Red Hat, Inc. >> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat >> Web: http://www.fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com >> Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/) >> (English) >> http://jnn.iteye.com (http://jnn.javaeye.com/) (Chinese) >> Twitter: willemjiang >> Weibo: 姜宁willem >> >> >> >> >> >> On Monday, March 11, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Yanmin Sheng wrote: >> >>> We create such client which will set target address info and binding >>> info in RequestContext of BindingProvider. >>> >>> String mtom11URL = "http://localhost:9080//MyBusiness/MTOM11Service";; >>> >>> MTOMInterface port = null; >>> BindingProvider bp = null; >>> >>> System.out.println("Looking up SOAP 1.1 MTOM service"); >>> >>> QName serviceName = new >>> QName("http://shengym.com/MyBusiness/","MTOM11Service";); >>> QName portName = new QName("http://shengym.com/MyBusiness";, "MTOM11Port"); >>> // Setup the necessary JAX-WS artifacts >>> Service svc = Service.create(serviceName); >>> port = svc.getPort(portName, MTOMInterface.class); >>> >>> // Set the target URL >>> bp = (BindingProvider) port; >>> Map<String, Object> requestCtx = bp.getRequestContext(); >>> requestCtx.put(BindingProvider.ENDPOINT_ADDRESS_PROPERTY,mtom11URL); >>> >>> // Enable MTOM >>> SOAPBinding binding = (SOAPBinding) bp.getBinding(); >>> binding.setMTOMEnabled(true); >>> >>> However, it reports such error: >>> >>> javax.xml.ws.WebServiceException:Port >>> {http://shengym.com/MyBusiness/} >>> >>> MTOM11Port not found. >>> org.apache.cxf.jaxws.ServiceImpl.getPort(ServiceImpl.java:332) >>> org.apache.cxf.jaxws.ServiceImpl.getPort(ServiceImpl.java:323) >>> javax.xml.ws.Service.getPort(Service.java:134) >>> >>> I know that the added following code can fix this error: >>> svc.addPort(portName, SOAPBinding.SOAP11HTTP_MTOM_BINDING, mtom11URL); >>> >>> Well, this error should not report even the addPort method is not called. >>> I know the added check in ServiceImpl is to avoid run time error and >>> report it as early as possible. But I think it is not needed. The >>> reasons are: >>> 1. User can get run time error later; >>> 2. User can set target addess info and bind info in other ways (as my >>> example shows) >>> >>> I remove the check from the ServiceImpl then my client code works well. >> >> -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
