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 freeman.fang@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.192.181 as permitted sender)
Subject: Re: CXF issue with all CAPS fields (follow up and resolution)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1280)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_C130BAF9-CF88-44FD-A6AD-B181C93FF82B"
From: Freeman Fang <freeman.fang@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EC8245B4-9E50-4A71-BFE3-812DFE6330C6@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 08:55:13 +0800
Cc: rouble <r.ouble@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <772E4AEC-B815-4E0B-BB99-F48D8D0C6982@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAPVtPhoB6DMCky_NxWPmtnZ_xop=Ho45FOvv1MN4bVSQ6VGJSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <EC8245B4-9E50-4A71-BFE3-812DFE6330C6@apache.org>
To: users@cxf.apache.org

--Apple-Mail=_C130BAF9-CF88-44FD-A6AD-B181C93FF82B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


=EF=BC=8D=EF=BC=8D=EF=BC=8D=EF=BC=8D=EF=BC=8D=EF=BC=8D=EF=BC=8D=EF=BC=8D=EF=
=BC=8D=EF=BC=8D=EF=BC=8D=EF=BC=8D=EF=BC=8D
Freeman(Yue) Fang

Red Hat, Inc.=20
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/
Twitter: freemanfang
Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com
http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042
weibo: @Freeman=E5=B0=8F=E5=B1=8B

www.camelone.org : The open source integration conference:=20

On 2013-5-22, at =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=881:02, Daniel Kulp wrote:

>=20
>=20
>> Next steps:
>> a) Do we want to up the JAXB version in the older 2.4 and 2.5 release
>> trains to 2.2.6?
>=20
> 2.4 is unsupported so won't be updated.    2.5 is on 2.2.5  We likely =
could update it.   That said, I think we're missing OSGi bundles for =
2.2.6 at this point.  Something for service mix. =20

In Servicemix, there is already a jaxb-impl 2.2.6 bundle get =
released[1], I think we can upgrade cxf 2.6.x feature to use it.
But there is no jaxb-impl 2.2.5 bundle, I can add it we still need it.

=
[1]http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/servicemix/bundles/org.apache.=
servicemix.bundles.jaxb-impl/2.2.6_1/
>=20
>=20
>> b) Can we add a testcase to the CXF regressions so that this kind of =
issue
>> can be caught before and does not make it to a released version of =
CXF?
>> [I would classify this as a show stopper - if CXF can't handle the =
case of
>> fields it can not be taken seriously and can not be used in =
production
>> environments]
>=20
> Feel free to write a unit test.  However, keep in mind that it would =
have to PASS on both Java6 (which would be using Jaxb 2.1.13) and Java7 =
(which would be using 2.2.6).   If the two of them behave differently, =
then the test would need to reflect that.
>=20
>=20
> Dan
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On May 21, 2013, at 10:36 AM, rouble <r.ouble@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Team,
>>=20
>> A while back I reported an issue where CXF 2.4.3 (JAXB 2.2.4) was =
unable to
>> transport data objects that had fields names in all caps. So for =
instance
>> something like:
>>=20
>>   Widget {
>>       Foo FOO;
>>       Bar bar;
>>   }
>>=20
>> This is easily reproducible with a CXF 2.4.3 client talking to a CXF =
2.4.3
>> server. Two defects were filed for this:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-4089
>> https://java.net/jira/browse/JAXB-880
>>=20
>> At the time my analysis and the analysis of Daniel Kulp was that JAXB =
was
>> generating a bad WSDL. We all came to this analysis because the WSDL =
was
>> different from CXF 2.4.2 (JAXB 2.2.1). Now, it seems that was an =
incorrect
>> analysis.
>>=20
>> After some tests on CXF 2.6.0 server (JAXB 2.2.6), which generates =
the
>> exact same WSDL, I noticed it works fine with a CXF 2.6.0 client, but =
does
>> not work fine with a CXF 2.4.3 client.
>>=20
>> This leads me to believe that the WSDL generated in CXF 2.6.0 is =
different
>> but still correct, and the issue is actually on the client side when =
JAXB
>> is unmarshaling the data object from the wire. However, I tested JAXB
>> unmarshalling with 2.2.1 and 2.2.4 outside of CXF. So it seems to be =
an
>> interaction issue between CXF and JAXB.
>>=20
>> Next steps:
>> a) Do we want to up the JAXB version in the older 2.4 and 2.5 release
>> trains to 2.2.6?
>> b) Can we add a testcase to the CXF regressions so that this kind of =
issue
>> can be caught before and does not make it to a released version of =
CXF?
>> [I would classify this as a show stopper - if CXF can't handle the =
case of
>> fields it can not be taken seriously and can not be used in =
production
>> environments]
>>=20
>> Thanks
>> Rouble
>=20
> --=20
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_C130BAF9-CF88-44FD-A6AD-B181C93FF82B--