I noticed it does that too, namely my issue is with https and it's
significantly harder to get the initial contact point for the wsdl's
over https so I end up openning both http and https and using http for
the initial wsdl and https for the actual calls.

As far as I can tell there is a use for it though, it seems to
re-validate the java stubs v.s. the wsdl and prints a warning if they
are different. This can be useful so you know if your stubs and wsdl's
are out of sync. I don't know if there's any other additional use for
it or not though.

On 12/11/12, Pampolini Matteo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> my name is Matteo and I'm writing from Italy.
>
> I'm new to Apache CXF, so please excuse me if this first question can
> appear silly, I searched the Web
> for an answer without success.
>
> I'm testing CXF with ONVIF web services, so I simply invoked wsdl2java
> with the main ONVIF WSDL file,
> say http://www.onvif.org/onvif/ver10/device/wsdl/devicemgmt.wsdl and I
> was able to generate all
> java classes.
>
> Now I'm trying to use the service, starting from
> java_first_spring_support I modified what's needed
> and I was able to compile. However, when I start the service I get an
> IOException just after
>
> INFO: Creating Service {$service.Namespace}$service.ServiceName from
> WSDL: http://www.onvif.org/onvif/ver10/device/wsdl/devicemgmt.wsdl
>
> and that's OK because I'm behind a proxy.
>
> What I don't understand is why CXF needs to retrieve the remote WSDL, if
> all the code was already generated. Please
> also note that the above file refer to many others, so even if I decide
> to download it and include it into the WAR
> file, I should manually download all the dependencies... or am I missing
> anything?
>
> Just as a comparison, the same done natively with gSOAP does not show
> this issue, once the code was generated
> everything is auto-consistent.
>
> Any help is very appreciated, many thanks in advance,
>
> Matteo
>
> --
> Write once, compile everywhere
> Compile once, run somewhere...
>
>


-- 
Ted.

Reply via email to