Right, this is still a SOAP binding since the first element of
<wsdl:binding/> is <soap:binding/>, and what goes over the wire is wrapped
in a SOAP envelope. It's the binding's transport that is JMS.
By analogy, the WSDL spec includes this example for SOAP over SMTP:
<wsdl:binding name="StockQuoteSoap" type="tns:StockQuotePortType">
> <soap:binding style="document" transport="http://example.com/smtp
> "/>
>
I can see why CXF was done it this way. The WSDL spec does not allow the
SOAP binding to have any extensibility elements:
<schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema";
> xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/";
> targetNamespace="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/";>
> ...
> <element name="address" type="soap:addressType"/>
> <complexType name="addressType">
> <attribute name="location" type="uriReference" use="required"/>
> </complexType>
>
And apparently CXF requires additional stuff like "destinationStyle" and
"jndiConnectionFactoryName". So I guess the question is whether this
non-compliance is intentional. Any insight or guidance, including "go away
and be happy with what you have" is appreciated. :)
Dan
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
