Thank you for the quick response.

Could you point me to an example of using JAXWS proxy-client's factory?
Did you mean org.apache.cxf.jaxws.JaxWsProxyFactoryBean class?

Thanks,
Giriraj.


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Jose María Zaragoza <[email protected]>
wrote:

> 2014-07-16 23:29 GMT+02:00 Giriraj Bhojak <[email protected]>:
> > Hello,
> > I have used Spring based configuration to define a jaxws client.
> > The spring bean looks something on following lines:
> >
> >     <jaxws:client id="id"
> >         serviceClass="SomeClass" address=someAddress>
> >         <jaxws:inInterceptors>
> >             <ref bean="inInterceptor" />
> >             <bean
> > class="org.apache.cxf.ws.security.wss4j.DefaultCryptoCoverageChecker" />
> >         </jaxws:inInterceptors>
> >         <jaxws:outInterceptors>
> >             <ref bean="outInterceptor" />
> >         </jaxws:outInterceptors>
> >     </jaxws:client>
> >
> > I need to use the same client definition for more than one client. I
> don't
> > see scope attribute in <jaxws:client>
> > Is there a way to use same definition for multiple clients?
>
> Maybe you can have a look at:
> http://cxf.apache.org/faq.html#FAQ-AreJAX-WSclientproxiesthreadsafe?
>
>
> >
> > Also, I am using <bean
> > class="org.apache.cxf.ws.security.wss4j.WSS4JOutInterceptor" > as the out
> > interceptor.
> > There is a key 'encryptionUser' that can be used to provide user's name
> for
> > encryption.
> > <entry key="encryptionUser" value="endPoint1" />
> > Is there a way I can use same bean definition of WSS4JOutInterceptor and
> > specify different 'encryptionUser' for each invocation of the jaxws
> client?
> >
> > Basically, I want to have a way to use same spring bean definitions to
> call
> > different web services endpoints.
>
> I'm not sure if it's a good idea.
> Maybe you could use a JAXWS proxy-client's factory and set
> interceptors for each proxy-client in runtime.
> As every factory of objects, you could implement some kind of cache
>
>
> > Could someone please help me with it?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Giriraj.
>

Reply via email to