Hi Freeman, Thanks for revising my patch, I have modified the test case RespectBindingFeatureClientServerTest to cover our scenario, and submited the new patch based your revise, please help to review.
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Freeman Fang <[email protected]>wrote: > Seems the jira isn't reachable now, so just paste my comment here > > Hi Alan, > > I'm OK with this patch basically, would you please also add testcase for > this functionality? > > You can extend the RespectBindingFeatureClientServerTest(and the wsdl used > for this test)[1] to cover your scenario. > [1]http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1177248 > > Thanks > Freeman > －－－－－－－－－－－－－ > Freeman(Yue) Fang > > Red Hat, Inc. > FuseSource is now part of Red Hat > Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/ > Twitter: freemanfang > Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com > http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042 > weibo: @Freeman小屋 > > On 2013-3-13, at 下午10:29, Freeman Fang wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Just get a chance to look at it, and added comment to CXF-4876. Sorry > for this late review btw. > > －－－－－－－－－－－－－ > > Freeman(Yue) Fang > > > > Red Hat, Inc. > > FuseSource is now part of Red Hat > > Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/ > > Twitter: freemanfang > > Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com > > http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042 > > weibo: @Freeman小屋 > > > > On 2013-3-13, at 下午8:48, Min Yang wrote: > > > >> Hi Freeman, > >> > >> I'm sorry to disturb to you, but there is no any updates since last > Friday. > >> Could you please let me know if there is any issue in the patch I > provided. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Min Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Freeman, > >>> > >>> I saw you have assgin the JIRA I opened to you last Friday, not sure if > >>> you have chance to review the patch I submitted, any issues you found > in > >>> that patch? > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Min Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Freeman, > >>>> > >>>> I have attach the patch for the issue, please review it. > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-4876 > >>>> Any problems please let me know, thanks! > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Freeman Fang <[email protected] > >wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> I've checked the JAXWS 2.2 spec, the related part is like > >>>>> > >>>>> 6.5.3 javax.xml.ws.RespectBindingFeature > >>>>> > >>>>> The RespectBindingFeature is used to control whether a JAX-WS > >>>>> implementation MUST respect/honor the contents of the wsdl:binding > >>>>> associated with an endpoint. It has a corresponding RespectBinding > >>>>> annotation described in section 7.14.3. > >>>>> > >>>>> ♦ Conformance (javax.xml.ws.RespectBindingFeature): When the > >>>>> javax.xml.ws.RespectBindingFeature is enabled, a JAX-WS > implementation MUST > >>>>> inspect the wsdl:binding at runtime to determine result and parameter > >>>>> bindings as well as any wsdl:extensions that have the required=true > >>>>> attribute. All required wsdl:extensions MUST be supported and > honored by a > >>>>> JAX-WS implementation unless a specific wsdl:extension has be > explicitly > >>>>> disabled via a WebServiceFeature. > >>>>> > >>>>> Per the spec, yeah, I'd say this is something CXF should follow, > would > >>>>> you please create a jira to track it? And patch is welcomed, as > always. > >>>>> > >>>>> －－－－－－－－－－－－－ > >>>>> Freeman(Yue) Fang > >>>>> > >>>>> Red Hat, Inc. > >>>>> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat > >>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/ > >>>>> Twitter: freemanfang > >>>>> Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com > >>>>> http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042 > >>>>> weibo: @Freeman小屋 > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2013-3-5, at 下午3:36, Min Yang wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When we test our application that enabled the RespectBinding > feature, > >>>>> we > >>>>>> found an issue in cxf-2.6.2. The issue is if we add an invalid > binding > >>>>>> under wsdl:binding element as you can see in below, a > >>>>> WebServiceException > >>>>>> will be throw out when accessing the endpoint first time, and the > >>>>> endpoint > >>>>>> will not be accessed, this is behavior is correct. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <binding name="EchoPortBinding" type="tns:Echo"> > >>>>>> <soap:binding transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http"; > >>>>>> style="document"/> > >>>>>> <tns:badBinding wsdl:required="true" uri="http://bad/bad"; > >>>>> xmlns:wsdl=" > >>>>>> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"; /> > >>>>>> <operation name="echo"> > >>>>>> <soap:operation soapAction=""/> > >>>>>> <input> > >>>>>> <soap:body use="literal"/> > >>>>>> </input> > >>>>>> <output> > >>>>>> <soap:body use="literal"/> > >>>>>> </output> > >>>>>> <fault name="Exception"> > >>>>>> <soap:fault name="Exception" use="literal"/> > >>>>>> </fault> > >>>>>> </operation> > >>>>>> </binding> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But if we add the invalid binding under operation or its sub element > >>>>>> (input, output or fault), like the example in below, then cxf will > not > >>>>>> check it, and the endpoint would be access after deployment, > although > >>>>> the > >>>>>> wsdl4j has deserialize it as an unkown element. So I think this > should > >>>>> be a > >>>>>> cxf defect, please confirm it. Thanks! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <binding name="EchoPortBinding" type="tns:Echo"> > >>>>>> <soap:binding transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http"; > >>>>>> style="document"/> > >>>>>> <operation name="echo"> > >>>>>> <soap:operation soapAction=""/> > >>>>>> <tns:badBinding wsdl:required="true" uri="http://bad/bad"; > >>>>> xmlns:wsdl=" > >>>>>> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"; /> > >>>>>> <input> > >>>>>> <soap:body use="literal"/> > >>>>>> </input> > >>>>>> <output> > >>>>>> <soap:body use="literal"/> > >>>>>> </output> > >>>>>> <fault name="Exception"> > >>>>>> <soap:fault name="Exception" use="literal"/> > >>>>>> </fault> > >>>>>> </operation> > >>>>>> </binding> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > >
