cxf-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Invalid WSDL for SOAP over JMS
Date Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:28:12 GMT
>  "go away and be happy with what you have"

:-)

Seriously,  that's an interesting catch.   This syntax basically comes  
from IONA's commercial products which have been doing it this way for  
YEARS (like 2001 or so).  You're the first to catch that it's  
invalid.   Nice job.

As part of the discussion for 2.2 features, updating the JMS transport  
was brought up.   One of the things we'd like to do is get it to  
implement the proposed spec:
http://www.w3.org/Submission/SOAPJMS/


Dan



On Jul 9, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Dan Retzlaff wrote:

> Right, this is still a SOAP binding since the first element of
> <wsdl:binding/> is <soap:binding/>, and what goes over the wire is  
> wrapped
> in a SOAP envelope. It's the binding's transport that is JMS.
>
> By analogy, the WSDL spec includes this example for SOAP over SMTP:
>
>    <wsdl:binding name="StockQuoteSoap" type="tns:StockQuotePortType">
>>        <soap:binding style="document" transport="http://example.com/smtp
>> "/>
>>
>
> I can see why CXF was done it this way. The WSDL spec does not allow  
> the
> SOAP binding to have any extensibility elements:
>
> <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema"
>>        xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/"
>>        targetNamespace="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/">
>>   ...
>>   <element name="address" type="soap:addressType"/>
>>   <complexType name="addressType">
>>      <attribute name="location" type="uriReference" use="required"/>
>>   </complexType>
>>
>
> And apparently CXF requires additional stuff like "destinationStyle"  
> and
> "jndiConnectionFactoryName". So I guess the question is whether this
> non-compliance is intentional. Any insight or guidance, including  
> "go away
> and be happy with what you have" is appreciated. :)
>
> Dan
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Glen Mazza <glen.mazza@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Oops--this is SOAP over JMS.  Never mind (I think).
>>
>>
>> Glen Mazza wrote:
>>>
>>> I may be wrong here but that's just for the SOAP binding within WSDL
>>> (which has other bindings, namely the HTTP one) A JMS binding with  
>>> WSDL
>>> would not be relevant for the SOAP-binding rule below then.
>>>
>>> Glen
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan Retzlaff wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The jms_queue and jms_pubsub samples configure their <wsdl:port/ 
>>>> >s with
>> a
>>>> <jms:address/> element instead of a <soap:address/> element.
This  
>>>> looks
>>>> like
>>>> the only way to get CXF's JMS transport to actually work, but I  
>>>> believe
>>>> it's
>>>> technically invalid. According to the WSDL spec at
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_soap:address:
>>>>
>>>>> 3.8 soap:address
>>>>>
>>>>> The SOAP address binding is used to give a port an address (a  
>>>>> URI). A
>>>>> port
>>>>> using the SOAP binding MUST specify exactly one address.  The URI
>> scheme
>>>>> specified for the address must correspond to the transport  
>>>>> specified by
>>>>> the
>>>>> soap:binding.
>>>>>
>>>> Is this discrepency worthy of a JIRA report? I'm guessing this  
>>>> URI-based
>>>> transport specification isn't as easy to do with the current
>>>> implementation,
>>>> but looking through the forum history, I'm not the first to be  
>>>> confused
>>>> by
>>>> this. In my case XMLSpy complains every time I try to validate my
>>>> CXF-compatible WSDLs.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Invalid-WSDL-for-SOAP-over-JMS-tp18367273p18368644.html
>> Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>

---
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog





Mime
View raw message