Mailing-List: contact users-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sberyozkin@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.171 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <558BDDD2.3010502@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:54:10 +0100
From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: problems using CXF as a JAX-RS 2.0 client
References: <1050773444.919339.1435227115537.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1050773444.919339.1435227115537.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi

You could've just posted a link to CXF-6475 to make it easier to read 
this message.

I do not see where the issue is. HttpConduit logging is a bit confusing 
indeed because there's a number of attempts to set TLS client parameters 
but it does not mean that HTTPS is not used.
Can you trace the content of the request in a plain tcp trace utility ? 
I'd say that no.

301 vs 200 does not mean it is not HTTPS.

The clue should be on the server side. Why 301, perhaps CXF produces a 
slightly different URI compared to Jersey ? Does the server depend on 
the order of the query parameters ?

Please investigate and let me know
Sergey

On 25/06/15 11:11, LBC wrote:
> hi,
> I'm having problems establishing a secure connection using CXF/JVM defaults.  Hopefully it's just a simple configuration issue.  Below is the generic JAX-RS 2.0 code, along with the associated Maven dependency, and the log output demonstrating the problem. Even though I'm specifying a "https" URL, it seems CXF is making the request via HTTP and thus yielding a 301 HTTP response code.  I'm running on JDK 7 (jdk1.7.0_51).  I've tried CXF 3.0.2, 3.0.3, and 3.1.1.  All yield a similar result.  Running the same test with the Jersey 2.x JAX-RS client yields the correct 200 HTTP response code.
> thanks,--Lawrence