cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: WS-Addressing Issues
Date Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:37:36 GMT


The quick executive summary is:
1) It's not a problem.  The implementation is OK to do this.   It's not 
optimal, but OK.  Issue created:
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-981

That was the point of the discussion.  We were trying to figure out if 
the issue is enough to warrant delaying 2.0.2.   The answer is no.


2) For code first cases (no wsdl policy extensors) adding the 
feature/interceptors should be enough to enable WS-A.   (Usability 
issue)   However, the user then takes on the responsibility of making 
sure the server will actually be OK with WS-A.     Any more thoughts on 
this?

Dan


On Friday 07 September 2007, Glynn, Eoghan wrote:
> FYI sorted out on IRC, see http://dev.rectang.com/logs/codehaus/%23cxf
>
> Cheers,
> Eoghan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan.diephouse@mulesource.com]
> > Sent: 06 September 2007 16:56
> > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: WS-Addressing Issues
> >
> > I'm having some issues getting WS-A to work for me.
> >
> > First, it seems that adding the WSAddressingFeature isn't
> > enough to get WS-A to be turned on. You have to set the
> > "usingAddressingAdvisory"
> > property which is cryptic at best. Why isn't adding the
> > interceptors to the client enough for it to start sending
> > WS-A headers? Why would we want it turned off by default?
> >
> > Second, I'm running the WS-A sample and it appears to be
> > sending two soap messages to the client - one partial
> > response and one decoupled message. From the logs:
> >
> > INFO: Outbound Message
> > --------------------------------------
> > <soap:Envelope
> > xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"><soap:H
> > eader><MessageID
> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">urn:uuid:9bd2e4c4
> > -cca0-478d-bc81-a57e92b9c1c4</MessageID><To
> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">http://localhost:
> > 9000/SoapContext/SoapPort</To><ReplyTo
> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"><Address>http://l
> > ocalhost:9990/decoupled_endpoint</Address></ReplyTo><FaultTo
> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"><Address>http://l
> > ocalhost:9990/decoupled_endpoint</Address></FaultTo></soap:Hea
> > der><soap:Body><sayHi
> > xmlns="http://apache.org/hello_world_soap_http/types"/></soap:
> > Body></soap:Envelope>
> > --------------------------------------
> > ...
> > INFO: Inbound Message
> > --------------------------------------
> > Headers: {null=[HTTP/1.1 202 Accepted], connection=[close],
> > SOAPAction=[""], Server=[Jetty(6.1.5)],
> > content-type=[text/xml; charset=utf-8]}
> > Message:
> > <soap:Envelope
> > xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"><soap:H
> > eader><MessageID
> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">urn:uuid:d15fa093
> > -3951-47f5-86ac-bd616f8d57d7</MessageID><To
> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">http://www.w3.org
> > /2005/08/addressing/anonymous</To><ReplyTo
> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"><Address>http://w
> > ww.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none</Address></ReplyTo></soap:He
> > ader><soap:Body /></soap:Envelope>
> > --------------------------------------
> > ...Eoghan  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan.diephouse@mulesource.com] 
> Sent: 06 September 2007 16:56
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: WS-Addressing Issues
> 
> I'm having some issues getting WS-A to work for me.
>
> > INFO: Inbound Message
> > --------------------------------------
> > Encoding: UTF-8
> > Headers: {Host=[localhost:9990], User-Agent=[Java/1.5.0_10],
> > connection=[keep-alive], SOAPAction=[""],
> > transfer-encoding=[chunked], Pragma=[no-cache],
> > content-type=[text/xml; charset=UTF-8],
> > Cache-Control=[no-cache], Accept=[*]}
> > Message:
> > <soap:Envelope
> > xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"><soap:H
> > eader><MessageID
> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">urn:uuid:9e2a0281
> > -dcea-42b5-b5a9-a89e265d40de</MessageID><To
> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">http://localhost:
> > 9990/decoupled_endpoint</To><RelatesTo
> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">urn:uuid:9bd2e4c4
> > -cca0-478d-bc81-a57e92b9c1c4</RelatesTo></soap:Header><soap:Bo
> > dy><sayHiResponse
> > xmlns="http://apache.org/hello_world_soap_http/types"><respons
> > eType>Bonjour</responseType></sayHiResponse></soap:Body></soap
> >
> > :Envelope>
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Is this correct? I thought the first http response should be
> > empty and
> > we should only be sending the second message.
> >
> > Last, I'm trying to write a different HTTP conduit and
> > destination. I.e.
> > one that uses Mule. I think this issue applies to our JBI
> > transport as
> > well. In both the JBI & Mule cases (or any other ESB), you
> > want to send
> > messages to the bus instead of to our transport layer. The
> > bus can then
> > send out the messages via it's transport layer. The issue is
> > this - our
> > decoupled endpoint stuff is baked into the transport, which
> > it needs to
> > be rebaked into the Mule/JBI transports as well. Its not
> > exactly trivial
> > to do either, I'm still struggling to figure it out. But to expand
> > my previous points on why decoupling in the transport is a BAD thing
> > here
> > are some other reasons:
> > - Setting up a decoupled endpoint for CXF will be completely
> > different
> > depending on whether or not your in an ESB environment or not. In
> > one case I have to use <http:conduit> to set the DecoupledEndpoint,
> > in another <mule:conduit>, in another <jbi:conduit> (which
> > doesn't support
> > decoupled interactions right now), etc. It'd be much much
> > better to have
> > this configuration associated with the client.
> > - Now any ESB transport needs to take care of setting the
> > appropriate HTTP statuses on the messages.
> > - I have to copy the InteroposedMessageObserver & decoupled
> > Destination
> > logic to my conduit
> > - I'm probably going to end up with a bunch of if(http) logic in my
> > transport to handle back channel stuff.
> > Am I missing something here? This seems way harder than it
> > should be...
> > Have any of the servicemix people looked at this yet?
> >
> > Regards,
> > - Dan
> >
> > --
> > Dan Diephouse
> > MuleSource
> > http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>
> ----------------------------
> IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
> Registered Number: 171387
> Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4,
> Ireland



-- 
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog

Mime
View raw message