Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of elakito@gmail.com designates
 209.85.215.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <884CE455-AD41-42D6-99A1-97E193A88E83@apache.org>
References: <BA8E4FDE-471A-4375-95F9-BCB861D9164A@apache.org>
	<537119D4.2010902@sosnoski.com>
	<884CE455-AD41-42D6-99A1-97E193A88E83@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 23:44:36 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAF8t5XvgXVFqX7+WXUfHkv1u=nKDzcN1J-NvznAVveHSorFLNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CXF 3.0 builds tomorrow....
From: Aki Yoshida <elakito@gmail.com>
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Cc: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@sosnoski.com>, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Dennis, Dan,
I think the oneway decoupled WS-RM scenario seems to be working fine
when I look at the client side log transcription.
http://pastebin.com/wRReBcqz

One error, I believe, that I saw while I was trying out a few other
things was the CloseSequence generation. I wrote to the dev list about
this a few hours ago.

Another error which Dennis mentioned to me and I can confirm is the
partial empty response is not correctly recognized as an partial empty
message at the server side. As a result, an empty soap envelope with
the default ws-a header is returned with http 202 over the http
response. I suppose this is resulted from some change somewhere in the
code that is not setting the correct state of the partial message. But
it seems this problem came in a while ago.  I wanted to look at it
today but didn't get to it. But I think this won't take time. If I can
get a few hours tomorrow, I can look into it. But it won't harm much
even the content is included as long as the http status is set to 202
to inform the client to ignore the content. In that case, we can
postpone this to 3.0.1.

regards, aki


2014-05-13 17:07 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>:
>
> Dennis,
>
> Any updates?   Just trying to figure out what=E2=80=99s left.  :-)
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On May 12, 2014, at 2:58 PM, Dennis Sosnoski <dms@sosnoski.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> RM is broken for oneway operations with a decoupled endpoint at present.=
 I'm trying to track the problem down, and Aki has also taken a look. If I =
can't fix it myself I'll add a test case so you can take a look.
>>
>> I don't know that this would qualify as a show stopper, but it's pretty =
significant and should be an easy fix.
>>
>>  - Dennis
>>
>> On 05/13/2014 02:38 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>> Now that we finally have email back (and thus can review/track commits,=
 issues, call votes, etc=E2=80=A6) I plan on doing the 3.0 builds real soon=
, hopefully tomorrow.    It looks like everything major is now done.   All =
snapshots are resolved, the tests seems to be passing, the RM issues are re=
solved, etc=E2=80=A6   Thus, I=E2=80=99d like to get this out.
>>>
>>> If you have anything that would be considered a show stopper, let me kn=
ow ASAP.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>