Hi, we like to thank everybody for the great help. We solved our problem and got our cxf-bc running. We wrote the whole project in a composition and uploaded to our homepage. Unfortunately it is written in german.
But maybe somebody like to read it: http://www.nhoppe.de/Sammelsurium/Eintrage/2010/2/1_Authentisierung_und_Autorisierung_am_Enterprise_Service_Bus.html Best regards and again thank you! N + P On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Freeman Fang <[email protected]>wrote: > > On 2010-1-20, at 上午9:46, Philip wrote: > > Hi everybody, >> >> thanks again for your help. >> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Freeman Fang <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> 2. We also added a SoapHeaderOutFilterInterceptor to clean the Header. >>> The >>> >>>> reason for that is that the Provider shouldn't receive the secure >>>> header. >>>> Is >>>> it possible to add a new header with different username/password? >>>> Perhaps >>>> with the WSS4JOutInterceptor? >>>> >>>> Yeah, you can configure WSS4JOutInterceptor for cxf bc provider >>> endpoint >>> which can add different username token ws-security header to the outgoing >>> soap message. >>> >> >> Freeman >> >> >> we succesfully added the wss4joutinterceptor. now we just have one more >> problem: >> >> the wss4joutinterceptor sets the attribute: soap:mustUnderstand="1" >> >> we have a WS-provider which doesn't understand soap, so we get a fault >> message. do you know if it's possible to change the attribute to: >> soap:mustUnderstand="0"? >> > Hi, > > I'm a little bit confused with your question, your external webservice need > ws-security to do the auth, so you add WSS4JOutInterceptor, which add > soap:mustUnderstand="1" for security headers. If your external webservice > can't understand soap security headers, it can't auth with ws-security, why > you need add WSS4JOutInterceptor for your cxf bc provider? > > I might be wrong for your scenario. > > Anyway as always you can write your interceptor to hack on-wire outgoing > soap message and change the mustUnderstand flag. > > Freeman > Hi Freeman, yeah you are completly right - it makes no sense. but our main project was a research on cxf and cxf-bc. we wanted to read out the header and save the header which is working now. now we wanted to add another header. worked with the ss
