If I knew how to vote, I'd +1 the proposal. For now I'll continue to ignore my WSDL editor's complaints. Thanks.
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "go away and be happy with what you have" >> > > :-) > > Seriously, that's an interesting catch. This syntax basically comes from > IONA's commercial products which have been doing it this way for YEARS (like > 2001 or so). You're the first to catch that it's invalid. Nice job. > > As part of the discussion for 2.2 features, updating the JMS transport was > brought up. One of the things we'd like to do is get it to implement the > proposed spec: > http://www.w3.org/Submission/SOAPJMS/ > > > Dan > > > > > On Jul 9, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Dan Retzlaff wrote: > > 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. >>> >>> >>> > --- > Daniel Kulp > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > > > >
