Hi, thanks for the anwser. I will try with CXF 2.5.x (i was previously using camel/cxf but for this test i will try with only CXF)
As i am offline i have some problems to enable ws-addressing using the example here: http://cxf.apache.org/docs/ws-addressing.html Caused by: javax.wsdl.WSDLException: WSDLException (at /wsdl:definitions/wsdl:import[1]/wsdl:definitions/wsdl:import[1]/wsdl:definitions/wsdl:types/xsd:schema/xsd:schema/xsd:schema): faultCode=PARSER_ERROR: Problem parsing ' http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/ws-addr.xsd'.: java.net.UnknownHostException: www.w3.org I added a jaxws-catalog to solve ws-addressing (in previous case) but it seems not working in this case. Regards Hervé On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Aki Yoshida <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > Can you try CXF 2.5.x? A bunch of issues around oneway-processing with > and without ws-addressing have been fixed in 2.4.x and 2.5.x. > > If you have a oneway service and the ws-addr feature is configured, > the service should be returning the http 202 empty response. > > regards, aki > > 2012/4/17 Hervé BARRAULT <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > > I'm trying to use CXF with both WS-Addressing and One Way. > > > > My client send a message (not with CXF) with the following SOAP Header: > > <soapenv:Header> > > <wsa:Action soapenv:mustUnderstand="1"> > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsn/bw-2/NotificationConsumer/Notify > > </wsa:Action> > > </soapenv:Header> > > > > In my logs, I had : > > 14:10:31,210 | WARN | ault-workqueue-2 | > > PhaseInterceptorChain | > > org.apache.cxf.common.logging.LogUtils 369 | > - > > - | Interceptor for { > > > http://example.com/test1}StatusBrokerService#{http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsn/brw-2}Notifyhas > > thrown exception, unwinding now > > org.apache.cxf.binding.soap.SoapFault: MustUnderstand headers: [{ > > http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing}Action] are not understood. > > at > > > org.apache.cxf.binding.soap.interceptor.MustUnderstandInterceptor$UltimateReceiverMustUnderstandInterceptor.handleMessage(MustUnderstandInterceptor.java:225) > > at > > > org.apache.cxf.binding.soap.interceptor.MustUnderstandInterceptor$UltimateReceiverMustUnderstandInterceptor.handleMessage(MustUnderstandInterceptor.java:199) > > at > > > org.apache.cxf.phase.PhaseInterceptorChain.doIntercept(PhaseInterceptorChain.java:243) > > at > > > org.apache.cxf.phase.PhaseInterceptorChain.resume(PhaseInterceptorChain.java:218) > > at > > > org.apache.cxf.interceptor.OneWayProcessorInterceptor$1.run(OneWayProcessorInterceptor.java:105) > > at > > > org.apache.cxf.workqueue.AutomaticWorkQueueImpl$2.run(AutomaticWorkQueueImpl.java:332) > > at > > > java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886) > > at > > > java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:908) > > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662) > > > > And there was a classical 202/Accepted for a One Way message (fault not > > returned as it is one way). > > > > > > > > So, I found an interesting topics which says, enable the ws-addressing > > feature (to avoid this fault) : > > I added the feature > > <cxf:features> > > <wsa:addressing/> > > </cxf:features> > > > > Now when i receive a message, an answer is automatically sent (which i > > guess is no more compliant with the One Way): > > <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/";> > > <soap:Header> > > <MessageID xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing > > ">urn:uuid:67074ee9-455b-4488-b48d-e2a9b16a7c1b</MessageID> > > <To xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous</To> > > <ReplyTo xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing";> > > <Address>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none</Address> > > </ReplyTo> > > </soap:Header> > > <soap:Body/> > > </soap:Envelope> > > > > I know, i use an old version of CXF : 2.2.12-fuse-00-00 but i have not > seen > > a related JIRA (and a post said that 2.4.0 had the same behavior). (I am > > using also the PAYLOAD mode) > > > > I am doing it the right way ? > > Is this behavior normal ? > > > > Thanks for answers > > Regards > > Hervé >
