cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <>
Subject Re: SOAP over JMS Questions
Date Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:22:20 GMT
Jiang, Ning (Willem) schrieb:
> You can name the configuration file as what as you want and the default
> configuration file name is cxf.xml. The default location that CXF will look for 
> a configuration for is "/cxf.xml" on the class path. If you wish to override 
> this location, you can specify a command line property: 
> -Dcxf.config.file=some_other_config.xml. If you want to use the url as the 
> configuration location, you can specify a command line property: 
> -Dcxf.config.file.url=config_file_url.
Additionally you can specify a different location if you create the cxf 
bus yourself.


> 2.)  Is there a reason why we allow configuration in the WSDL[1] in
> addition to the configuration file?  I think configuration file alone is
> good (just like it is for SOAP over HTTP).  Some of the properties that
> would go in the WSDL, such as connectionUserName and connectionPassword,
> don't seem appropriate for a WSDL--a WSDL, after all, is meant to be
> read by lots of people.
I agree with you that passwords do not belong in the WSDL. The problem 
is that there is no worldwide consens about how to write a url for a jms 
The queuename alone is not enough as it is only unambiguous in the 
context of a jms server. So a jms address must always contain some 
identification for the jms server and the queue.

> <Willem> I agree with you. 
> CXF's JMS transport can get the address information from WSDL and 
> Configuration file. If I remember right the configuration file can 
> Override the WSDL's extension. </Willem>
> I mention this second point also because I think Dan K. said he would
> like us to have the option of using the Spring JMS abstraction[3] for
> configuration--which sounds good but maintaining three separate
> configuration methods appears overly burdensome.  I wonder if
> WSDL-configuration of SOAP over JMS should be deprecated then.  FWIW,
> Axis2 does not do JMS configuration in the WSDL[4].  Metro does a little
> bit[5], but just trivially in the soap:address section of the
> wsdl:service section.
We should not completely drop the address support in wsdls. Instead I 
think it would be great to support the upcoming standard for soap/jms 
WSDLs. The only thing I donĀ“t like about it is that it is java centric. 
It would be better to have a standard for soap / messaging.

> <Willem> I also think we should support the Spring JMS template, which 
> could be more wildly used :), and I think adrian.corcoran are working 
> n it now </Willem>
Spring JMS Templates would be great. At least I would like to have the 
possibility to define the ConnectionFactory outside the address and only 
reference it there.




Christian Schneider

View raw message