Hi Jan,
Thanks for your remarks. Still I think that the response is some kind
of error response. If you request for a list, you get a different
response, with only TO object information, no Spring related stuff.
Best regards,
Ernst



2012/12/10 Jan Bernhardt <[email protected]>:
> Hi Ernst,
>
> the result that you get is generated from the spring Webservice stack, which 
> uses reflection to un/marshal TransferObjects (TOs). After the migration from 
> SpringWebservices to CXF the un/marshal process will be based on JAX-B 
> annotations, which will result in a much cleaner xml code.
>
> Best regards.
> Jan
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fabio Martelli [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 12:03
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: Result of syncope/rest/connector/read/1200.xml request seems
>> strange
>>
>>
>> Il giorno 07/dic/2012, alle ore 11.59, ernst Developer ha scritto:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > When retrieving a connector configuration using the above mentioned
>> > url, I get a strange result. The xml starts with:
>> >
>> > <org.springframework.validation.BeanPropertyBindingResult>
>> > <nestedPath/>
>> > <nestedPathStack serialization="custom"> <unserializable-parents/>
>> > <vector> <default> <capacityIncrement>0</capacityIncrement>
>> > <elementCount>0</elementCount>
>> > <elementData>
>> > <null/>
>> > <null/>
>> > <null/>
>> > <null/>
>> > <null/>
>> > <null/>
>> > <null/>
>> > <null/>
>> > <null/>
>> > <null/>
>> > </elementData>
>> > </default>
>> > </vector>
>> > </nestedPathStack>
>> > <objectName>connInstanceTO</objectName>
>> > <messageCodesResolver
>> > class="org.springframework.validation.DefaultMessageCodesResolver">
>> > <prefix/>
>> > </messageCodesResolver>
>> > <errors class="linked-list"/>
>> > <suppressedFields/>
>> > <target class="org.apache.syncope.client.to.ConnInstanceTO">
>> > <id>1200</id>
>> > <bundleName>org.connid.bundles.ad</bundleName>
>> >
>> > -- the rest is omitted.
>> >
>> > I guess this is not expected behavior?
>>
>> Hi Ernst,
>> it seems correct: the output is what we expected.
>>
>> Regards,
>> F.
>>
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Ernst
>

Reply via email to