cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glen Mazza <glen.ma...@verizon.net>
Subject Re: Questions on CXF-884. (Was Re: Graduating.....)
Date Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:11:54 GMT
Am Freitag, den 17.08.2007, 18:09 -0400 schrieb Daniel Kulp:

> Glen,
> 
> On Tuesday 14 August 2007, Glen Mazza wrote:
> > Thanks Dan K, CXF-884[1] has been quite helpful in understanding the
> > code more.  I have a few questions so far:
> 
> Sorry I missed this.  I'm still catching up.     Go away for a few days 
> and get deluged with email.   :-(
> 
> >
> > 1.) In the simple.xsd[2] and jaxws.xsd[3] configuration files, which
> > top-level elements need to have a "qualifyWrapperSchema" attribute
> > added?  I think it is *both* server and endpoint in jaxws.xsd, and
> > just server in simple.xsd, correct?  This attribute has no purpose in
> > the "client" element, correct?
> 
> Hmm... good question.   It probably does have a purpose there.   If you 
> are doing completely code first development (no wsdl) and you create the 
> proxy client from an interface, you probably need to make sure the 
> settings are the same as what you have on the server side so the 
> messages it creates are what the server expects.
> 
> Actually, looking at the code now, this may be a bit more involved than I 
> originally thought.    Sorry about that.   :-(     The 
> getInParameterName/getOutParameterName methods may need to be updated to 
> return QNames that honor the qualified/not qualified thing.     Maybe.  
> I'm not really sure on that.   Maybe the stuff in the 
> initializeWrappedSchema could just be updated to modify the ELEMENT_NAME 
> things based on the qualified or not stuff.   That might be easiest.
> 
> 

<snip/>

> If this seems like a bit much, I can probably go through some JIRA's and 
> find other things if you want.    Other than that, feel free to ask more 
> questions.    Your questions above were great.  
> 

Right now, I'd rather a more veteran team member handle this, especially
since the proper solution is somewhat ambiguous at this stage, and the
fact that this change cascades to other parts of the code, requiring
testing beyond my current grasp of the system.  (If nobody else tackles
this however, and as my knowledge of the system increases, perhaps I can
take a second look at this change in the future.)

There are two other issues Bozhong had recommended for me (the other two
are out pending for feedback from the reporter), plus reasonable level
tasks you can spot would be appreciated.  I will be looking myself.

Thanks,
Glen



Mime
View raw message