You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cxf.apache.org by John Hite <jh...@appsecinc.com> on 2008/09/29 22:07:29 UTC
names matter?
Hi,
Is there a way to tell CXF to ignore the names of method parameters? I'm
trying to get it to work with another soap library that is agnostic to
parameter names. This causes trouble when the parameter name changes and I
am not aware that it was changed.
As an example, I want this SOAP message
<ns1:getVersion xmlns:ns1="http://soap.example.com/">
<in0>100018</in0>
</ns1:getVersion>
and this SOAP message
<ns1:getVersion xmlns:ns1="http://soap.example.com/">
<arg0>100018</arg0>
</ns1:getVersion>
to be both recognized and handled properly. Is this possible?
Thanks,
John
RE: names matter?
Posted by John Hite <jh...@appsecinc.com>.
Thank you,
That answers my question perfectly. This problem is occurring because of a
migration from rpc/encoded to doc/literal. It certainly has been a nightmare
so far.
-----Original Message-----
From: users-return-10862-jhite=appsecinc.com@cxf.apache.org
[mailto:users-return-10862-jhite=appsecinc.com@cxf.apache.org] On Behalf Of
Daniel Kulp
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 4:51 PM
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Cc: John Hite
Subject: Re: names matter?
On Monday 29 September 2008 4:40:58 pm John Hite wrote:
> Thank you Erik, that works for the time being, but I'm sure this is going
> to come back to haunt me someday.
>
> It's been a while since I've gone over the SOAP standard with a fine
> toothed comb. Does anyone know if the SOAP standard says that parameter
> names must be used for identifying the parameters? I thought it was
> supposed to the parameter order that was important.
With the "literal" mappings (rpc/lit and doc/lit), the schema defines
exactly
how the messages should appear. Thus, the schema wins.
With the older soap encoded stuff, there was a lot of flexibility and stuff
which made for an interopability nightmare, which is why no-one does it
anymore.
Dan
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: users-return-10860-jhite=appsecinc.com@cxf.apache.org
> [mailto:users-return-10860-jhite=appsecinc.com@cxf.apache.org] On Behalf
Of
> Ostermueller, Erik
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 4:19 PM
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: RE: names matter?
>
> Would it help if you could replace the <arg0> with a name of your
> choosing?
>
> If you're doing java-first, try something like this:
>
> @WebService
> public interface MyInterface {
> void myMethod(
> @WebParam(name="MyXmlTagName") int myNum);
> }
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:11 PM
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: names matter?
>
> I don't think so. It would take a very interesting interceptor. However,
> I may be missing something.
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, John Hite <jh...@appsecinc.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there a way to tell CXF to ignore the names of method parameters?
> > I'm trying to get it to work with another soap library that is
> > agnostic to parameter names. This causes trouble when the parameter
> > name changes and I am not aware that it was changed.
> >
> >
> >
> > As an example, I want this SOAP message
> >
> >
> >
> > <ns1:getVersion xmlns:ns1="http://soap.example.com/">
> >
> > <in0>100018</in0>
> >
> > </ns1:getVersion>
> >
> >
> >
> > and this SOAP message
> >
> >
> >
> > <ns1:getVersion xmlns:ns1="http://soap.example.com/">
> >
> > <arg0>100018</arg0>
> >
> > </ns1:getVersion>
> >
> >
> >
> > to be both recognized and handled properly. Is this possible?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
>
> _____________
>
> The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or
> confidential. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do
> not disclose,
> distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender
> immediately. In addition,
> please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to
> archiving and review by
> persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
> _____________
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: names matter?
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Monday 29 September 2008 4:40:58 pm John Hite wrote:
> Thank you Erik, that works for the time being, but I'm sure this is going
> to come back to haunt me someday.
>
> It's been a while since I've gone over the SOAP standard with a fine
> toothed comb. Does anyone know if the SOAP standard says that parameter
> names must be used for identifying the parameters? I thought it was
> supposed to the parameter order that was important.
With the "literal" mappings (rpc/lit and doc/lit), the schema defines exactly
how the messages should appear. Thus, the schema wins.
With the older soap encoded stuff, there was a lot of flexibility and stuff
which made for an interopability nightmare, which is why no-one does it
anymore.
Dan
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: users-return-10860-jhite=appsecinc.com@cxf.apache.org
> [mailto:users-return-10860-jhite=appsecinc.com@cxf.apache.org] On Behalf Of
> Ostermueller, Erik
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 4:19 PM
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: RE: names matter?
>
> Would it help if you could replace the <arg0> with a name of your
> choosing?
>
> If you're doing java-first, try something like this:
>
> @WebService
> public interface MyInterface {
> void myMethod(
> @WebParam(name="MyXmlTagName") int myNum);
> }
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:11 PM
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: names matter?
>
> I don't think so. It would take a very interesting interceptor. However,
> I may be missing something.
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, John Hite <jh...@appsecinc.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there a way to tell CXF to ignore the names of method parameters?
> > I'm trying to get it to work with another soap library that is
> > agnostic to parameter names. This causes trouble when the parameter
> > name changes and I am not aware that it was changed.
> >
> >
> >
> > As an example, I want this SOAP message
> >
> >
> >
> > <ns1:getVersion xmlns:ns1="http://soap.example.com/">
> >
> > <in0>100018</in0>
> >
> > </ns1:getVersion>
> >
> >
> >
> > and this SOAP message
> >
> >
> >
> > <ns1:getVersion xmlns:ns1="http://soap.example.com/">
> >
> > <arg0>100018</arg0>
> >
> > </ns1:getVersion>
> >
> >
> >
> > to be both recognized and handled properly. Is this possible?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
>
> _____________
>
> The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or
> confidential. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do
> not disclose,
> distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender
> immediately. In addition,
> please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to
> archiving and review by
> persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
> _____________
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
RE: names matter?
Posted by John Hite <jh...@appsecinc.com>.
Thank you Erik, that works for the time being, but I'm sure this is going to
come back to haunt me someday.
It's been a while since I've gone over the SOAP standard with a fine toothed
comb. Does anyone know if the SOAP standard says that parameter names must
be used for identifying the parameters? I thought it was supposed to the
parameter order that was important.
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: users-return-10860-jhite=appsecinc.com@cxf.apache.org
[mailto:users-return-10860-jhite=appsecinc.com@cxf.apache.org] On Behalf Of
Ostermueller, Erik
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 4:19 PM
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: RE: names matter?
Would it help if you could replace the <arg0> with a name of your
choosing?
If you're doing java-first, try something like this:
@WebService
public interface MyInterface {
void myMethod(
@WebParam(name="MyXmlTagName") int myNum);
}
-----Original Message-----
From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:11 PM
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: names matter?
I don't think so. It would take a very interesting interceptor. However,
I may be missing something.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, John Hite <jh...@appsecinc.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Is there a way to tell CXF to ignore the names of method parameters?
> I'm trying to get it to work with another soap library that is
> agnostic to parameter names. This causes trouble when the parameter
> name changes and I am not aware that it was changed.
>
>
>
> As an example, I want this SOAP message
>
>
>
> <ns1:getVersion xmlns:ns1="http://soap.example.com/">
>
> <in0>100018</in0>
>
> </ns1:getVersion>
>
>
>
> and this SOAP message
>
>
>
> <ns1:getVersion xmlns:ns1="http://soap.example.com/">
>
> <arg0>100018</arg0>
>
> </ns1:getVersion>
>
>
>
> to be both recognized and handled properly. Is this possible?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
>
>
_____________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or
confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do
not disclose,
distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender
immediately. In addition,
please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to
archiving and review by
persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_____________
RE: names matter?
Posted by "Ostermueller, Erik" <Er...@fnis.com>.
Would it help if you could replace the <arg0> with a name of your
choosing?
If you're doing java-first, try something like this:
@WebService
public interface MyInterface {
void myMethod(
@WebParam(name="MyXmlTagName") int myNum);
}
-----Original Message-----
From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:11 PM
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: names matter?
I don't think so. It would take a very interesting interceptor. However,
I may be missing something.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, John Hite <jh...@appsecinc.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Is there a way to tell CXF to ignore the names of method parameters?
> I'm trying to get it to work with another soap library that is
> agnostic to parameter names. This causes trouble when the parameter
> name changes and I am not aware that it was changed.
>
>
>
> As an example, I want this SOAP message
>
>
>
> <ns1:getVersion xmlns:ns1="http://soap.example.com/">
>
> <in0>100018</in0>
>
> </ns1:getVersion>
>
>
>
> and this SOAP message
>
>
>
> <ns1:getVersion xmlns:ns1="http://soap.example.com/">
>
> <arg0>100018</arg0>
>
> </ns1:getVersion>
>
>
>
> to be both recognized and handled properly. Is this possible?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
>
>
_____________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose,
distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition,
please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by
persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_____________
Re: names matter?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
I don't think so. It would take a very interesting interceptor. However, I
may be missing something.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, John Hite <jh...@appsecinc.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Is there a way to tell CXF to ignore the names of method parameters? I'm
> trying to get it to work with another soap library that is agnostic to
> parameter names. This causes trouble when the parameter name changes and I
> am not aware that it was changed.
>
>
>
> As an example, I want this SOAP message
>
>
>
> <ns1:getVersion xmlns:ns1="http://soap.example.com/">
>
> <in0>100018</in0>
>
> </ns1:getVersion>
>
>
>
> and this SOAP message
>
>
>
> <ns1:getVersion xmlns:ns1="http://soap.example.com/">
>
> <arg0>100018</arg0>
>
> </ns1:getVersion>
>
>
>
> to be both recognized and handled properly. Is this possible?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
>
>