Only for UsernameTokens or SAML Tokens. Colm.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Oliver Wulff <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it allowed to not define a security binding? > > > ________________________________________ > Von: Colm O hEigeartaigh [[email protected]] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2012 20:12 > Bis: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: AW: CXF2.5.1 WS-SecurityPolicy > > Could you try with CXF 2.5.2? I fixed a few bugs in 2.5.1 that might > be causing this problem. > > Colm. > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 6:43 PM, sram <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks for your response. I'm following the examples from your link. I'm not >> sure how transport binding is a pre-requisite here when cases where SSL can >> be offloaded at F5 or webserver (single hop webservice from one node to >> another). Also, the case I am trying out was adapted from the authors >> "DoubleItPlaintextNoPasswordPolicy" or DoubleItPlaintextPolicy. >> >> The error is thrown from PolicyVerificationInInterceptor, which I believe is >> simply asserting if the policies are valid declarations. Please help me >> understand, if i am wrong. >> >> Caused by: org.apache.cxf.ws.policy.PolicyException: These policy >> alternatives can not be satisfied: >> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200702}UsernameToken >> at >> org.apache.cxf.ws.policy.AssertionInfoMap.checkEffectivePolicy(AssertionInfoMap.java:166) >> at >> org.apache.cxf.ws.policy.PolicyVerificationInInterceptor.handle(PolicyVerificationInInterceptor.java:101) >> at >> org.apache.cxf.ws.policy.AbstractPolicyInterceptor.handleMessage(AbstractPolicyInterceptor.java:45) >> ... 32 more >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/CXF2-5-1-WS-SecurityPolicy-tp5449316p5451598.html >> Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > -- > Colm O hEigeartaigh > > Talend Community Coder > http://coders.talend.com -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com
