Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of willem.jiang@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.54 as permitted sender)
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:13:36 +0800
From: Willem jiang <willem.jiang@gmail.com>
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Message-ID: <459AF87F025E4A7E9557CAAE38BA20F0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADeBtN2Y4XpExTcdfxyRBb0v=Mj6hZzuRES7ZFC-Frt5UZvbAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADeBtN2Y4XpExTcdfxyRBb0v=Mj6hZzuRES7ZFC-Frt5UZvbAA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CXF Client issue when try to handle session for One-Way
 Operation call
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Please fill a JIRA=5B1=5D and share the patch with us.
=5B1=5Dhttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CX=46


-- =20
Willem Jiang

Red Hat, Inc.
=46useSource is now part of Red Hat
Web: http://www.fusesource.com =7C http://www.redhat.com
Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/) =
(English)
          http://jnn.iteye.com (http://jnn.javaeye.com/) (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang =20
Weibo: =E5=A7=9C=E5=AE=81willem


On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Harsha Thirimanna wrote:

> Hi ,
> =20
> I am working for a project that base on web service and client. My issu=
e is
> in client side. I created the client using CX=46. I wanted to call few
> operation in one service at once. In server side it handle the session =
so
> when do the first call it return session id and client should pass it t=
o
> the next operation call in same service There may be sequence of operat=
ion
> calls in one service at once.
> I got this issue when first operation is one-way. Because after do the
> first call it returns session id, but second call goes to the server as=
 a
> fresh request(no set session id to second request).
> I went through your code and got some fix , I'll attached that fix with=

> this. But your the expertise of this. Please we want to clear this out.=

> This was blocker issue for us really.
> =20
> Note : I have handled the configuration in client side to do this as
> session enabled. I confirmed that, because If I do two way operation ca=
ll ,
> then this session handle correctly.
> =20
> thanks =20