Hi Benson, can you provide more info please ?
Where do you have the logging interceptors registered ? Assuming it is
on the client side, can you please confirm using a tcp trace utility,
that the response payload is actually non-empty ?
Cheers, Sergey
On 13/11/11 01:00, Benson Margulies wrote:
I'm trying to use a provider for the first time on the client side of
JAX-RS, using CXF 2.5.0.
Here's the code to set up the client:
List<Object> providers = new ArrayList<Object>();
providers.add(new org.codehaus.jackson.jaxrs.JacksonJsonProvider());
WebClient client = WebClient.create("http://localhost:"; +
portString + "/r4dws/services/doc", providers);
client.type("application/json");
PlainTextInputOptions ptio = new PlainTextInputOptions();
// details of the content bean elided
Response response =
client.path("/processText").accept("application/json").invoke("GET",
ptio);
The output logging interceptor shows the right thing (a bunch of json)
in the 'Payload'
Http-Method: GET
Content-Type: application/json
Headers: {Content-Type=[application/json], Accept=[application/json]}
Payload:
{"languageDetection":{"language":"UNKNOWN","strategy":"MULTIPLE"},"text":"1
de junio de 2003, 18h01\n\nBush y Chirac sonríen para las cámaras en
tensa cumbre del G-8\n\n\nEVIAN, Francia (Reuters) - Los presidentes
George W. Bush y Jacques Chirac sonrieron el domingo para las cámaras
al inicio de una cumbre del Grupo de los Ocho eclipsada por el
enfrentamiento franco-estadounidense por la guerra de Irak y la
inquietud sobre los próximos movimientos de Washington.\n\n\nBush
recibió un corto ..."}
But the input logging interceptor shows absolutely nothing:
----------------------------
ID: 2
Address: http://localhost:15000/r4dws/services/doc/processText
Http-Method: GET
Content-Type: application/json
Headers: {Accept=[application/json], cache-control=[no-cache],
connection=[keep-alive], content-type=[application/json],
host=[localhost:15000], pragma=[no-cache], user-agent=[Apache CXF
2.5.0]}
--------------------------------------
Where has my json gone? The choice of GET over POST here is a
conceptual error which I'll fix, but shouldn't work just the same?
