Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-issues-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 77175 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2008 14:32:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Jun 2008 14:32:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 46840 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jun 2008 14:32:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-issues-archive@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 46826 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jun 2008 14:32:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list issues@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 46815 invoked by uid 99); 2 Jun 2008 14:32:20 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:32:20 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.140] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.140) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:31:28 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42093234C133 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1362518285.1212417105269.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:31:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Opalka (JIRA)" To: issues@cxf.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (CXF-1623) Wrong method implementation in AnnotationHandlerChainBuilder In-Reply-To: <1062493744.1212416385034.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1623?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12601639#action_12601639 ] Richard Opalka commented on CXF-1623: ------------------------------------- The questions are: Q1: Is this method implementation correct? I personally think yes but it has wrong preconditions. It expects id to be one of 5 enumerated values there. Q2: Is the hack in JaxWsServerFactoryBean.createBindingInfo() method necessary? At least I know this hack breaks the above method (it's preconditions). I'm talking about this piece of code: ... if (binding == null) { binding = jaxBid; setBindingId(binding); // this sets correct value first (in my case "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/http" } if (binding.equals(SOAPBinding.SOAP11HTTP_BINDING) || binding.equals(SOAPBinding.SOAP11HTTP_MTOM_BINDING) //|| binding.equals(SOAPBinding.SOAP12HTTP_BINDING) || binding.equals(SOAPBinding.SOAP12HTTP_MTOM_BINDING)) { binding = "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/"; setBindingId(binding); // but here this hack resets this value to "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/" and this hacked value later in the execution breaks AnnotationHandlerChainBuilder.protocolMatches() method preconditions ... > Wrong method implementation in AnnotationHandlerChainBuilder > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: CXF-1623 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1623 > Project: CXF > Issue Type: Sub-task > Reporter: Richard Opalka > -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.