Oops--this is SOAP over JMS. Never mind (I think).
Glen Mazza wrote: > > I may be wrong here but that's just for the SOAP binding within WSDL > (which has other bindings, namely the HTTP one) A JMS binding with WSDL > would not be relevant for the SOAP-binding rule below then. > > Glen > > > Dan Retzlaff wrote: >> >> The jms_queue and jms_pubsub samples configure their <wsdl:port/>s with a >> <jms:address/> element instead of a <soap:address/> element. This looks >> like >> the only way to get CXF's JMS transport to actually work, but I believe >> it's >> technically invalid. According to the WSDL spec at >> http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_soap:address: >> >>> 3.8 soap:address >>> >>> The SOAP address binding is used to give a port an address (a URI). A >>> port >>> using the SOAP binding MUST specify exactly one address. The URI scheme >>> specified for the address must correspond to the transport specified by >>> the >>> soap:binding. >>> >> Is this discrepency worthy of a JIRA report? I'm guessing this URI-based >> transport specification isn't as easy to do with the current >> implementation, >> but looking through the forum history, I'm not the first to be confused >> by >> this. In my case XMLSpy complains every time I try to validate my >> CXF-compatible WSDLs. >> >> Regards, >> Dan >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Invalid-WSDL-for-SOAP-over-JMS-tp18367273p18368644.html Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
