Outstanding! And I see you're putting the fix in both trunk (2.1) and 2.0.x-fixes. Thanks Dan! -Mike
> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:57 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Default input/output names in port types not honored > > > > I have a fix for that as well. It's a very small change. Much > easier than the tooling changes at least (but that may be because I'm > much more familiar with the runtime code than the tooling). > > Dan > > > On May 12, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Ramnarine, Michael wrote: > > > Dan, > > > > Thanks for the quick fix for the code generation problem I outlined! > > We were hoping it would also fix the problem Paul mentions below. > > > > One bug down, one to go. Please let us know if we can provide any > > further information. > > > > -Mike > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 1:18 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Default input/output names in port types not honored > >> > >> > >> > >> Hmm.. Ok. No. I just fixed the code generation stuff (wsdl2java > >> and validator) that was preventing it from even generating the client > >> code. Didn't actually try running it. > >> > >> Ick. That's a whole different problem. :-( > >> > >> Dan > >> > >> > >> > >> On May 12, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Taylor, Paul wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Hi Dan > >>> > >>> The context for this bug was attempting to create a client (using > > the > >>> ReflectionServiceFactoryBean) and not being able to find any > >>> operations > >>> since because of the mismatch in the names between the port-type and > >>> the > >>> binding. Will the fix also address this problem or is it only > > related > >>> to the validator? > >>> > >>> > >>> Paul > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> Sent: 12 May 2008 17:43 > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Subject: Re: Default input/output names in port types not honored > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Michael, > >>>> > >>>> This is definitely a bug in the CXF validator. The xpaths that > > the > >>>> validator are using don't take the "defaults" into account for > > this. > >>>> I'm testing a fix for it now. > >>>> > >>>> Dan > > --- > Daniel Kulp > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > >
