cxf-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: Custom WSDL binding
Date Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:03:26 GMT
There seems to be no term of art so simple that the web service
community can't make a ambiguity of it.

OK, then ...

The two CXF things I mentioned ... front end and data binding ... are
neither of them 1-1 with the WSDL binding concept you reference. In my
time on the project, I can't remember anyone come through here looking
to deal with an 'exotic' binding at this level.

So, while on the one hand, soap bindings are just another class
hierarchy in CXF, I don't feel at all confident in asserting that you
can just knock off a new one and expect it to work. If things work as
usual around here, presently Dan will turn up in this conversation, so
I'll stop here before I write anything completely out to lunch.

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Alan Egerton <> wrote:
> Hi Benson,
> Thank you for your reply.  I have made some comments inline below:
>> What exactly do you mean be 'binding'? In CXF, that means the mapping
>> of data type parameters to and from XML, as opposed to 'front end',
>> which deals with message structure. It's not obvious to me what you
>> are counting four of.
> Apologies for the ambiguity: I meant WSDL bindings which, if I
> understand correctly, express the serialization of messages for the
> wire.  From what you say, this is the 'front end' in CXF's
> terminology?
> According to <>, CXF
> supports four such bindings / 'front ends': MTOM, Pure XML, SOAP 1.1
> and SOAP 1.2.
>> Our usual advice to people who need to talk to 'some weird
>> nonconforming thing' is to use the provider interface, not a WSDL at
>> all. Just use CXF to push the XML in and out.
> Thanks, I'll look into this.
>> For a WSDL to be a viable approach, I think that the binding has to
>> have the character that it can be expressed in W3C XML Schema. If you
>> can't describe the parameters in XML Schema, i
>> you would need to deal in WSDL extensions.
> Indeed, perhaps this is the source of the original confusion: the
> contract in question is indeed using WSDL extensions—but it had not
> quite clicked.  I will dig around on this subject.
>> Generally, though, the cost-benefit works like this: if you are
>> rigging up communications with a unique legacy service, building a
>> data binding or front-end would be an inefficient process. The value
>> of building one of these components is reusability; if you need to
>> talk to 27 different variations.
> Actually, it's more of an academic exercise to try and familiarise
> myself with some of the more obscure features of WSDL.  A baptism by
> fire, if you will.
>> Finally, I'd note that a lot of messages on this list discuss ways to
>> tweak CXF so that the standard components can talk to nonstandard
>> endpoints. Fiddling with namespaces is by far the most frequent, but
>> many other things are possible. At the front-end level, you can grab
>> control of many decisions by writing a class and pushing it into a
>> property, for example.
> Sounds like I have a lot more reading to do over the weekend!
> Thank you again for all your help.
> -- Alexi

View raw message