If you can, try with 2.2.6: The Maven staging area is at: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecxf-057/
The distributions are in: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecxf-057/org/apache/cxf/apache- cxf/2.2.6 I'm HOPING this is fixed as a bunch of changes have been done to the attachment stuff. Dan On Wed January 20 2010 10:16:27 am James Carr wrote: > I am using 2.2.5. The weird thing is, if I read one stream in and > close it before the other, everything works fine. If I read the other > one in first, it throws an exception. > > With this code: > http://gist.github.com/281463 > > > reading the attachments in in this order works perfectly fine: > > byte[] dbf = readAsBytes(result.getDbfData().getInputStream()); > byte[] shp = readAsBytes(result.getShapeData().getInputStream()); > > However, reading them in the other order causes the exception to be thrown: > > byte[] shp = readAsBytes(result.getShapeData().getInputStream()); > byte[] dbf = readAsBytes(result.getDbfData().getInputStream()); > > > Confused, > James > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:27 PM, William Tam <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > It sounds familiar. If this is the same bug as > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2503, then it has been fixed in > > 2.1.8, 2.2.5, and 2.3. > > > > Thanks, > > William > > > > James Carr wrote: > >> Here is my code: http://gist.github.com/281463 > >> > >> Another interesting point is if I am hitting the url from SoapUI, I > >> noticed the cid for both xop elements are the same. Does that matter? > >> > >> Here is the raw soap resoponse: http://gist.github.com/281488 > >> > >> The odd thing is, if I only send one attachment I get it just fine? > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:45 PM, James Carr <[email protected]> > >> > >> wrote: > >>> I've been trying to use MTOM with one of my CXF services... with one > >>> attatchment it works fine, with two I get a > >>> java.util.ConcurrentModificationException whenever I try to read one > >>> of the inputStreams for them. Any ideas offhand? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> James > -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
