And stupid question of the day..where is @WebReturn supposed to be in,
jaxws-api? My IDE doesn't seem to know where to find it.

On 13 December 2010 21:37, Yiannis Mavroukakis <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello Daniel,
> the WebReturn is a great suggestion, I'll get that setup, but I will also
> pursue your suggestion about the debug. Any particular class I should be
> looking towards for that, except the BareOutInterceptor?
>
> Oh and a huge facepalm on my part about _return... :)
>
>
> On 13 December 2010 20:42, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Monday 13 December 2010 6:07:32 am Yiannis Mavroukakis wrote:
>> > Any ideas on this? I'm really keen to move to 2.3.1, without forcing my
>> > users to regen their code.
>>
>> Honestly, I'm not really sure.   Is there an @WebReturn on the methods
>> with a
>> "name" in it?   That SHOULD be the easiest way from your side to make sure
>> it
>> stays consistent.
>>
>> While  debugging, can you see if there are any @XmlElement annotations on
>> the
>> _return parameter?  _return is correct (since you cannot have a name of
>> "return" as it's a reserved word), but there should be an @XmlElement
>> annotation on it.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [email protected]
>> http://dankulp.com/blog
>>
>
>

Reply via email to