I thought I may have found the issue, while debugging BareOutInterceptor but
I'm still stumped..

My operation is called login, so in the MessageContentsList I end up with a

   com.gameaccount.external.account.jaxws_asm.LoginResponse class.

this contains my own BaseResponse class under a _return variable, which is
what I am guessing gets written out...The thing

that got me though is that this is exactly the same under 2.3.0, so there
must be something a lot more subtle at work here..


Y.

On 9 December 2010 10:20, Yiannis Mavroukakis <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Here's a diff of 2.3.0 with 2.3.1
>
> spazstik:account imavroukakis$ diff 2.3.0 2.3.1
> 20c20
> < [INFO] +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-frontend-jaxws:jar:2.3.0:compile
> ---
> > [INFO] +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-frontend-jaxws:jar:2.3.1:compile
> 23,24c23,24
> < [INFO] |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-api:jar:2.3.0:compile
> < [INFO] |  |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-common-utilities:jar:2.3.0:compile
> ---
> > [INFO] |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-api:jar:2.3.1:compile
> > [INFO] |  |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-common-utilities:jar:2.3.1:compile
> 30,31c30,31
> < [INFO] |  |  \- org.apache.cxf:cxf-common-schemas:jar:2.3.0:compile
> < [INFO] |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-core:jar:2.3.0:compile
> ---
> > [INFO] |  |  \- org.apache.cxf:cxf-common-schemas:jar:2.3.1:compile
> > [INFO] |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-core:jar:2.3.1:compile
> 34,40c34,40
> < [INFO] |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-bindings-soap:jar:2.3.0:compile
> < [INFO] |  |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-tools-common:jar:2.3.0:compile
> < [INFO] |  |  \- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-databinding-jaxb:jar:2.3.0:compile
> < [INFO] |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-bindings-xml:jar:2.3.0:compile
> < [INFO] |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-frontend-simple:jar:2.3.0:compile
> < [INFO] |  \- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-ws-addr:jar:2.3.0:compile
> < [INFO] +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-transports-http:jar:2.3.0:compile
> ---
> > [INFO] |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-bindings-soap:jar:2.3.1:compile
> > [INFO] |  |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-tools-common:jar:2.3.1:compile
> > [INFO] |  |  \- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-databinding-jaxb:jar:2.3.1:compile
> > [INFO] |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-bindings-xml:jar:2.3.1:compile
> > [INFO] |  +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-frontend-simple:jar:2.3.1:compile
> > [INFO] |  \- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-ws-addr:jar:2.3.1:compile
> > [INFO] +- org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-transports-http:jar:2.3.1:compile
> 78,79c78,79
>
> Nothing leaps out at me.  I am using jaxb/ws 2.2.1 btw, I will try with 2.2
> just in case.
>
> Y
>
> On 8 December 2010 20:33, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 08 December 2010 11:58:07 am Yiannis Mavroukakis wrote:
>> > Sorry, stupidly forgot to include more info about my setup. I am seeing
>> > this on the deployed service, I use a code first approach, so it was
>> > simply a case of updating the version on my pom, recompiling and firing
>> up
>> > the service. If you need anything specific to debug this I'd be happy to
>> > help.
>>
>> I have NO idea what would cause this.  Can  you do something like:
>>
>> mvn clean dependency:copy-dependencies
>> or even just
>> mvn dependency:tree
>>
>> with each of the two and see if different versions of things are popping
>> up?
>>
>> This isn't in OSGi, is it?
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Yiannis
>> >
>> > On 8 December 2010 16:53, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday 08 December 2010 11:45:15 am Yiannis Mavroukakis wrote:
>> > > > Hello everyone,
>> > > >
>> > > > I updated from 2.3.0 to 2.3.1 today, and I noticed that the <return>
>> > > > element has changed to <_return> any particular reason for this?
>> > >
>> > > No idea really.   Is there any way to create a small test case?
>> > >
>> > > The only thing that really was done around this is with the wsdl2java
>> > > tool and
>> > > java2ws tools (is that where you are seeing this), we did a better job
>> of
>> > > endorsing the jaxws/jaxb 2.2 stuff.   If this is just a runtime thing,
>> > > then that really wouldn't apply though.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Daniel Kulp
>> > > [email protected]
>> > > http://dankulp.com/blog
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [email protected]
>> http://dankulp.com/blog
>>
>
>

Reply via email to