Hi Sergey > thanks for the clarifications and your patience :-) You are all making a great job with cxf, being patient or building a testcase is the minimum I can do for you!
> Would it make sense to have two ports for a single service or two > services, one supporting a SecCon only and the other supporting plain > UTs only ? That doesn't sound as cool as policy alternatives. Do you mean something like: <wsdl:service> <wsdl:port name="Foo" binding="UtBinding" /> <wsdl:port name="FooSec" binding="SecConvBinding" /> </wsdl:service> Is this a valid configuration? I'll test it on Monday, but I'd prefer policy alternatives. Even if the mix of encrypted messages and plain text isn't common, there are other scenarios, where the outgoing message format relates to the incoming. Let's assume you'd like to offer two SecureConversation policies with different encryption algorithms or key strength - cxf shouldn't roll a dice to chose an output format :) > This is what I meant, it could be tricky, though feasible, to figure > out dynamically which alternative has to be satisfied I think cxf should remember which policy was valid for the incoming message and use it for the outgoing message. This seems to involve no guesswork on the outgoing side. But that's just an idea without knowing anything about the code. Cheers Karl
