Any ideas on this? I'm really keen to move to 2.3.1, without forcing my users to regen their code.
On 9 December 2010 14:29, Yiannis Mavroukakis < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> >> >> >
