those classes offline?
Thanks,
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/wsdl2java-with-MTOM-and-firewall-tp4290446p4290446.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
so far prevents the tools from trying to connect. Is the catalog
really the right place to fix this? The WSDL only declares a namespace like
this:
It doesn't declare a schemaLocation or anything like that. What URI should
be used in that case? I've tried
but to no avail.
Thanks,
Jens
--
View
.
Thanks,
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/WSDL-binding-through-XML-config-tp4302584p4302584.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
.
What is that new way? I haven't been able to find anything similar, and the
old property is no longer available.
Thanks,
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/JMS-Message-Correlation-in-CXF-2-3-tp4830121p4830121.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive
current CXF
versions to change its correlation strategy?
Jens wrote:
In version 2.1 and 2.2 CXF had a property useMessageIDAsCorrelationID on
the JMSConfiguration to adjust how the client correlates JMS messages. The
property was introduced in CXF-2760, and in that issue Willem mentions
a conduitSelectorPrefix is given CXF constructs a correlationId itself,
thereby preempting the attempt to correlate on the messageId instead.
Thanks,
Jens
Jens wrote:
Let me try to phrase the question differently. It looks like the CXF JMS
transport by default correlates the correlationId, ie. the client
.
I'm running 2.3.2 at the moment but I think the code's pretty much unchanged
in trunk.
Jens
Christian Schneider wrote:
sorry for the delay. I just created a testcase for this as I found none
that was testing this case.
See below for the algorithm to determine the correlation id to send
=messageType value=byte/]
[property name=useMessageIDAsCorrelationID value=true/]
[/bean]
Jens
Christian Schneider wrote:
Can you post your config?
Christian
Am 30.09.2011 14:00, schrieb Jens:
Hi Christian,
thanks for your reply.
I had a look at the code, too. I guess my
Hi Christian,
that won't work, primarily because I'm not allowed to use temporary queues
(company policy) and the server is listening on a remote queue manager, so
if I leave out replyToDestination it won't know where to send the reply.
Jens
Christian Schneider wrote:
Hi Jens,
why don´t
is
that CXF 2.3/4 no longer supports the useMessageIDAsCorrelationID option
that 2.2 had.
Regards,
Jens
Christian Schneider wrote:
Hi Jens,
why do you set replyDestination and replyToDestination to different
names? I don´t think that this can work.
The JMSConduit will always specify
Hi Christian,
unfortunately, no. I have never been able to correlate anything with
WebSphere MQ without using the conduitIdSelectorPrefix. (That's what the
option is for, I presume?)
Regards,
Jens
Christian Schneider wrote:
Hi Jens,
thanks for the explanation. Now I understand your use
that CXF sets a correlation ID on the request, and the server returns
the message ID as the correlation ID. CXF fails to correlate that message.
Jens
Christian Schneider wrote:
The selector for the correlation id seems to be only used for
synchronous calls. Is that the case for your project or do
Hi Christian,
I can get those dumps, too, yes, but it won't work regardless.
With WebSphere MQ you always (!) need to use an ID: selector prefix when
working with JMS, or the selector won't match.
Jens
Christian Schneider wrote:
Hi Jens,
that is expected .. at least for the new CXF
.
correlationId logic in CXF apparently only applies to the synchronous case I
guess that explains why it doesn't work. Is there a way to enable it for
asynchronous exchanges as well?
Regards,
Jens
Christian Schneider wrote:
Hi Jens,
would be really great to get these dumps. I still hope we
, to make validation work.
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/CXF-2-3-1-Message-signature-doesn-t-get-validated-tp5155316p5157968.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
exception upon retrieving the JMS factory (which seems to go
wrong and retries recursively or something).
Any ideas what might be wrong here?
Thanks,
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/JMS-transport-No-conduit-initiator-was-found-tp5453473p5453473.html
Sent from
that I have successfully used the transportId in this way with CXF
2.3.2 before.
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/JMS-transport-No-conduit-initiator-was-found-tp5453473p5453728.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Jens wrote
Christian Schneider wrote
and can you try the same but leave out the transportId= All my
examples do not do this.
I can try to put a smallish example together but I can't leave out the
transportId. The client would try to use the original HTTP URL from the
WSDL
because I need to talk to an existing service.
Thanks,
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/SOAP-w-Attachments-still-supported-tp5454220p5454220.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Daniel Kulp wrote
On Friday, February 03, 2012 7:46:30 AM Jens wrote:
does CXF (2.5.2) still support SwA?
It should be working. We have tests for it and the JAX-WS TCK requires
it.
Some of our tests are at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/systests/jaxws/src/test/java/org
Jens wrote
Daniel Kulp wrote
On Friday, February 03, 2012 7:46:30 AM Jens wrote:
does CXF (2.5.2) still support SwA?
It should be working. We have tests for it and the JAX-WS TCK requires
it.
Some of our tests are at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/systests/jaxws
Daniel Kulp wrote
On Friday, February 10, 2012 1:44:16 AM Jens wrote:
On Friday, February 03, 2012 7:46:30 AM Jens wrote:
does CXF (2.5.2) still support SwA?
It should be working. We have tests for it and the JAX-WS TCK
requires
it.
Is it possible that this error is a side
Daniel Kulp wrote
Yea. Please do so. That way it won't get lost. Attach your test case
as
well if possible.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-4106
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/SOAP-w-Attachments-still-supported-tp5454220p5481946.html
Sent
as a workaround. That's basically how
we've solved this use case anyway, but using a custom component (that I'd
like to get rid of) instead of Camel.
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/JMS-Message-Correlation-in-CXF-2-3-tp4830121p5606116.html
Sent from the cxf-user
://cxf.apache.org/bindings/xformat]Rejected.[/ns1:faultstring]
[ns1:detail xmlns:ns1=http://cxf.apache.org/bindings/xformat;]
[service]SERVICE_WS[/service]
[/ns1:detail]
[/ns1:XMLFault]
Much of the important info is missing here.
This is with CXF 2.4.4.
Regards,
Jens
--
View this message in context
Daniel Kulp wrote
On Sep 14, 2012, at 7:32 AM, Jens wrote:
Hi,
I'm using CXF in combination with Apache Camel to bridge between XML/MQ
and
SOAP/HTTP and back.
When I get a SOAP fault back from the service provider the XML
representation generated by CXF is incomplete.
For example
around. Something like ignore JMSReplyTo would work as well.
Thanks,
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/JMS-Transport-Overriding-ReplyDestination-tp5731199.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
it to the client (this could
be done by keeping JMSReplyTo intact, I suppose, but we're using fixed
queues anyway so that's unnecessary in this case; effectively, the client
could also just not set JMSReplyTobut it's an external source and out of my
control unfortunately).
Jens
--
View
?
It would be nice if it did but it's really more of a proxy look-alike and
there are technical reasons why it cannot modify the proxied messages. If
CXF cannot ignore the JMSReplyTo field, however, we have little choice but
to build our own true proxy to do just that.
Jens
--
View this message
or cxf message);
}
}
Thus, if you have an interceptor or similar on the chain, you should be
able to set the JMSConstants.JMS_REBASED_REPLY_TO property on the IN
message to something else and it should be picked up.
I'll give that a shot.
Thanks,
Jens
--
View this message
gets to create the
response message? Is the JMSMessage available at that point?
Thanks,
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Message-correlation-with-the-JMS-transport-tp5738552.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Ideally, CXF would just peek at the namespace on the message, pick the schema
corresponding to that namespace from the XML catalog and validate against
that.
Cheers,
Jens
Aki Yoshida-3 wrote
Hi,
I am not sure how you want to set it up. Where do you expect the
corresponding schema
Thanks, Dan. Building the Schema object wouldn't be a problem at all. I'll
see if I can get hold of the ServiceInfo from the endpoint somehow.
Hopefully, Camel CXF still has that accessible. I'd rather not do it with an
interceptor on each invocation.
Daniel Kulp wrote
If the ServiceInfo
, and it works fine if I
supply a WSDL, but it doesn't work without the WSDL. Is there a way to have
CXF validate the request with a setup like that?
Thanks,
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Schema-Validation-with-non-WSDL-endpoint-tp5758353.html
Sent from
SD for the header type and/or a generated JAXB class
for it, exactly the same way:
Header header = new Header (qn, myJaxbHeader, new
JAXBDataBinding(MyJaxbHeader.class))
Regards,
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/complex-SOAP-Headers-tp5761748p5761768.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
with "...input(.*/.*)") so it looks like the policy
either doesn't apply the necessary interceptors or doesn't match outright.
Any ideas what might be wrong?
Jens
Andrei Shakirin wrote
> Hi Jens,
>
>> Wrt PolicyAttachment http://cxf.apache.org/docs/how-it-works.html says
omain expressions of type
wsa:EndpointReferenceType" to associate policy attachments with policy
targets. I suppose that means there is currently no means to select a
specific input/output from XML configuration only?
Regards,
Jens
coheigea wrote
> Hi Jens,
>
> You could try us
oStuff" element, is not a valid SOAP version.). Is there something else I
need to do with the new version to make this work?
Thanks,
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/XML-Binding-in-CXF-3-tp5767578.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Jens wrote
> Hi,
>
> we're currently migrating from CXF 2 to CXF 3, and I've run into a problem
> with the XML binding.
>
> I have a standard service WSDL that specifies a SOAP binding. I would like
> to use the XML binding, however. Previously, all I would do to switch fro
and go
back to signing "regular" responses only? Is there a way to specify that
with WS-Policy?
Thanks,
Jens
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/WS-SecurityPolicy-and-signing-faults-tp5768725.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Thanks Colm,
I cannot (am not supposed to) change the WSDL so I'm using a
wsp:PolicyReference on the CXF endpoint.
Is it possible that way as well?
Jens
coheigea wrote
> Yes, simply reference the SignedParts policy only in the wsdl:input/output
> in your wsdl:binding, and not the wsdl
tead:
http://cxf.apache.org/docs/using-the-jmsconfigfeature.html
David Payne-2 wrote
> Hi Jens,
>
> Thanks very much for this, I've tried it, and my MQ admin is telling me
> that the message still has the MQMD format of MQHRF2, and includes an
> MQRFH2 header.
>
> I only
Hi,
I suspect you want to tell MQ that the receiver is not a JMS client but a
"regular" consumer.
Try specifying the target queue name like this:
"queue:///" + queueConfig.getQueue() + "?targetClient=1"
Cheers,
Jens
David Payne-2 wrote
> I'm trying to send a
like this out
of the box, or whether I'd have to write that myself.
I would hope that AWS isn't that exotic anymore, however, and there's at
least some foundation that could be built upon.
Thanks,
Jens
--
Sent from: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/cxf-user-f547216.html
ers to the SOAP request
Cheers,
Jens
coheigea wrote
> Hi,
>
> There isn't any support in CXF for SRP using WS-Policy or otherwise, as
> far
> as I'm aware. Do you have a link to some documentation about how SRP would
> work with SOAP messages?
>
> Colm.
>
> On W
Hi Colm,
yes, that's what I did now.
I'm actually not sure whether the way to use this stuff with SOAP is some
sort of standard or just a one-off project with a home-grown authentication
scheme.
In case I do get something official and public I'll let you know.
Cheers,
Jens
coheigea wrote
);
client.getRequestContext().put(
BindingProvider.ENDPOINT_ADDRESS_PROPERTY,
https://sample.url/SampleService;);
Any input is appreciated.
Jens
for the public.
thank you very much!
jens
be integrated in the code anymore. The code is static and compiled
and has all the information needed to run properly(?) Why is the WSDL file
useful here and retrieved at all?
I spent a lot of thinking about that but was not able to figure this out.
Thank you very much!
Jens
Cited from: http
)
at
org.springframework.context.support.AbstractApplicationContext.refresh(AbstractApplicationContext.java:397)
What can I do to avoid this? I don't really understand why CXFBusImpl
should close the context in the first place?
Best regards,
Jens
startup and shutdown). I guess I'll file a bug for this.
Jens
2012/2/8 Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org
On Wednesday, February 08, 2012 5:58:27 PM Jens Borgland wrote:
Hi,
I have a web application that uses Spring and CXF (currently 2.4.2),
and runs on Tomcat.
I would definitely try a newer
Hi,
I think that could much easier be handled with a servlet filter
(http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/servlet/Filter.html).
Jens
2012/2/9 Nishant Chandra nishant.chan...@gmail.com:
Hi,
I was wondering if it is possible to log request processing time i.e. start
and end time using
for adding a new transport module for spring webflux + netty
combo ?
Regards
Jens
DISCLAIMER: "The information in this e-mail and any attachment is intended only
for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. If you have received this e
53 matches
Mail list logo
