Mailing-List: contact users-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dretzlaff@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.44.156 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references;
        b=NgztP+gR14IlmXHVZ5ns7tAmi4+B8l0MiCdFpuVuWIbI7ivdl/XhAGhGGTo0jyMCAy
         sJRIp4kucm0z2E+QvRUM+o/JkyQnZdrt3MiaPBD4VCH+fzbElLSMPKVP/Pb4MVtuJX0F
         iUlB7xJHAeZR/6a2c+yq8nLldkFq/txNEPzFg=
Message-ID: <8186f4430807091801x63ab8f70hebf9feb968aa548e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:01:16 -0700
From: "Dan Retzlaff" <dretzlaff@gmail.com>
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Invalid WSDL for SOAP over JMS
In-Reply-To: <52C8D08D-B432-4948-95DC-A93007A6137A@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_13969_19024668.1215651676128"
References: <8186f4430807091054p3b224526v26641f1173b8fcc5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <18368624.post@talk.nabble.com> <18368644.post@talk.nabble.com>
	 <8186f4430807091245q2bd98e7ex8203dd79c80f680d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <52C8D08D-B432-4948-95DC-A93007A6137A@apache.org>

------=_Part_13969_19024668.1215651676128
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

If I knew how to vote, I'd +1 the proposal. For now I'll continue to ignore
my WSDL editor's complaints. Thanks.

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:

>  "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
>
>
>
>
>

------=_Part_13969_19024668.1215651676128--