Re: cxf-2.4.0 pattern match StaxTransformFeature?

[cogitate <mo...@gmail.com>]

hi sergei:
 many thanks for the feature to drop outgoing default namespaces.
so - for incoming messages what's the complexity of dropping namespaces? 
i have an inInterceptor that passes the incoming messages through an xslt (
for certain types of payload ) that drops all prefixes and namespaces.

why can't we have this?

regards,
-cogitate

--
View this message in context: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/cxf-2-4-0-pattern-match-StaxTransformFeature-tp4381005p4814256.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: cxf-2.4.0 pattern match StaxTransformFeature?

[cogitate <mo...@gmail.com>]

Sergei :
 my apologies - and thank you for the correction !!
i completely agree with you , for the input what we have currently suffices
( even adding of prefixes within cxf chain interceptors poses no threats as
jaxb impls in cxf do what's required! )

You abzolutellly Rock!!!

if you ever do make it to the bay-area i would love to get you coffee/lunch
and meet up with you to pick your brains!

regards





--
View this message in context: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/cxf-2-4-0-pattern-match-StaxTransformFeature-tp4381005p4816957.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: cxf-2.4.0 pattern match StaxTransformFeature?

[Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>]

Hi
On 17/09/11 18:42, cogitate wrote:
> hi sergei:
>   many thanks for the feature to drop outgoing default namespaces.
Actually, I did not add that feature as a follow-up to our conversation, 
it was possible to drop default or non-default namespaces from the get 
go, but I update the out handler to optionally use a default namespace 
when writing out namespaces. Having it for out messages can make sense 
in some cases...

> so - for incoming messages what's the complexity of dropping namespaces?
> i have an inInterceptor that passes the incoming messages through an xslt (
> for certain types of payload ) that drops all prefixes and namespaces.
>
> why can't we have this?
>
If you are referring to dropping namespaces then you can do it right 
now. Having some leftover non-default namespace declarations can't 
prevent JAXB from properly reading the payload
Sergey



> regards,
> -cogitate
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/cxf-2-4-0-pattern-match-StaxTransformFeature-tp4381005p4814256.html
> Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.