Did you miss Alexey's reply?

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bd02fc736659bb2466254ddd062540f20bee7e25881cb75797c49f64@%3Cdev.cxf.apache.org%3E

Colm.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:11 AM Peter Condick <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hello CXF devs
>
> We have a issue with version 3.3.x of CXF. See details below.
>
> I know CXF is open source and if we really want it fixing we should
> contribute. But at the moment what we would really like to know is -
>
> Is the below behaviour intended behaviour? If so we can just upgrade to
> 3.3.x and change all our imports. Or is it actually a bug that should get
> fixed one day. In which case we won't upgrade yet.
>
> Thanks very much. We appreciate all the work you do.
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 5:40 PM Peter Condick <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > We're using CXF in our project and we have come across an issue moving
> > from 3.2.9 to 3.3.2 (and also affects 3.3.1).
> >
> > We are replacing old legacy systems with new systems using CXF. This
> means
> > unfortunately that we can not change any of the wsdl files.
> >
> > Some of the wsdl files we have to use have namespaces declared like
> >
> > <wsdl:definitions name="ExampleService_v1_0" targetNamespace="http:/
> example.com.au/otherstuff"  ... other name spaces defined>
> >
> >
> > Note only one / after the http: in the targetNamespace
> >
> > With 3.2.x when we generated java classes from a wsdl like this it would
> > be put in the package
> >
> > au.com.example.otherstuff
> >
> > Now with 3.3.x the classes are generated in the package
> >
> > au.com.xample.otherstuff
> >
> > note the e is removed from example
> >
> > Is this intended behaviour or is this a bug? If it is intended behaviour
> > is there a way to make it behave in the old way? If it is a bug is it one
> > you are likely to fix?
> >
> > The code generated in the xample package works fine. But this is a
> problem
> > for us as it means if we upgrade the version of CXF in one of our
> existing
> > repositories all the imports in our code will break. Correcting the wsdl
> > files to have http:// rather than http:/ would be the ideal I agree but
> > unfortunately we can't do that when we are changing legacy
> implementations.
> >
> > Thanks very much. We appreciate all the work you do.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


-- 
Colm O hEigeartaigh

Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com

Reply via email to