You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> on 2009/09/29 18:21:39 UTC
CXF-2275, CXF-2276, and the new sample.....
Christian,
I've gone ahead and merged the changes for CXF-2275 and CXF-2276 onto 2.2.x
since the changes are completely additive (shouldn't break anything) and I
don't expect 2.3 to be ready for a little while (I know I don't have time to
finish the stuff I was working on right now). These are great new things
with little impact so getting them out is good, IMO.
Are those JIRA's now "resolvable" or is there more work required? Mostly
just curious.
I'm also interested in hearing peoples thoughts about merging the new
wsdl_first sample to 2.2.x. I know it will be a bit more work for me
(Progress has some internal tests that test some of the samples to make sure
they don't break and these changes will break those tests. Not a big deal.),
but I have to make those changes for trunk testing anyway so not a big deal.
The new sample really is MUCH nicer than the old one. I think getting it out
there is probably a good thing. Thoughts?
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: CXF-2275, CXF-2276, and the new sample.....
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
@Dan: sorry for this duplicate .. I always forget to use reply all
instead of reply. So the message was not delivered to the list.
Daniel Kulp schrieb:
> On Thu October 1 2009 4:48:55 am Christian Schneider wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> for CXF-2275 there is currently no way to include the wsdl in the jar of
>> the current project. I think this should be added as you explained that
>> in some cases the wsdl is necessary at runtime.
>>
>
> I'm not so sure this is really necessary. I think the best option would be
> for them at runtime to specify the location of the "live" wsdl when creating
> the Service object. Like 'http://blah.com/services/foo?wsdl" or similar.
> Thus, the wsdl wouldn't need to be added to the jar, but could also be used.
>
>
Why do you think a link to a external location is a good idea here? It
would mean that the service implementation depends on the server that
hosts the WSDL. The advantage of adding the WSDL to the jar would also
be that it is documented which WSDL was used when building the jar.
>> I also have to still add a test for the feature. Trygve advised to use
>> maven project with two subprojects for the test. One that creates the
>> wsdl and one that includes it and builds code from it.
>> I plan to add this to the systests.
>>
>
> Ick.. Have fun. :-) I really hate trying to write tests for maven
> plugins. I'm not sure, but you MAY be able to look at the unit test
> frameworks for the remote-resources plugin. It supposedly uses the maven
> invoker stuff to invoke maven internally. Not really sure though.
>
>
I have almost finished the test. I added a subproject to systests named
wsdl_maven that contains the two subprojects.
So at the moment the only test is to create and retrieve the wsdl and
generate code. Some more advanced method would of course be better.
Do you think this could work for the start?
Greetings
Christian
--
Christian Schneider
---
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Re: CXF-2275, CXF-2276, and the new sample.....
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Thu October 1 2009 4:48:55 am Christian Schneider wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> for CXF-2275 there is currently no way to include the wsdl in the jar of
> the current project. I think this should be added as you explained that
> in some cases the wsdl is necessary at runtime.
I'm not so sure this is really necessary. I think the best option would be
for them at runtime to specify the location of the "live" wsdl when creating
the Service object. Like 'http://blah.com/services/foo?wsdl" or similar.
Thus, the wsdl wouldn't need to be added to the jar, but could also be used.
> Do you know how to add a file to the jar? Is it just done by copying the
> wsdl file to the classes folder?
They would probably need to use the dependency:copy-artifact goal or similar
to copy the wsdl artifact to something like target/generated-resources or
something that is configured as a resources directory.
> I also have to still add a test for the feature. Trygve advised to use
> maven project with two subprojects for the test. One that creates the
> wsdl and one that includes it and builds code from it.
> I plan to add this to the systests.
Ick.. Have fun. :-) I really hate trying to write tests for maven
plugins. I'm not sure, but you MAY be able to look at the unit test
frameworks for the remote-resources plugin. It supposedly uses the maven
invoker stuff to invoke maven internally. Not really sure though.
> CXF-2276 is finished.
> Apart from this I think the additions should at least do no harm so it
> is good to merge them to 2.2.x.
Merged. Thanks!
> I also would vote to include the new sample to 2.2.x. The one feature
> that the new example does not show anymore is how to turn on xsd
> validation. But I think this feature
> is not so important - especially for beginners.
Also merged. Thanks!
Dan
>
> Greetings
>
> Christian
>
> Daniel Kulp schrieb:
> > Christian,
> >
> > I've gone ahead and merged the changes for CXF-2275 and CXF-2276 onto
> > 2.2.x since the changes are completely additive (shouldn't break
> > anything) and I don't expect 2.3 to be ready for a little while (I know I
> > don't have time to finish the stuff I was working on right now). These
> > are great new things with little impact so getting them out is good, IMO.
> >
> > Are those JIRA's now "resolvable" or is there more work required?
> > Mostly just curious.
> >
> > I'm also interested in hearing peoples thoughts about merging the new
> > wsdl_first sample to 2.2.x. I know it will be a bit more work for me
> > (Progress has some internal tests that test some of the samples to make
> > sure they don't break and these changes will break those tests. Not a
> > big deal.), but I have to make those changes for trunk testing anyway so
> > not a big deal.
> >
> > The new sample really is MUCH nicer than the old one. I think getting
> > it out there is probably a good thing. Thoughts?
>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: CXF-2275, CXF-2276, and the new sample.....
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
Hi Dan,
for CXF-2275 there is currently no way to include the wsdl in the jar of
the current project. I think this should be added as you explained that
in some cases the wsdl is necessary at runtime.
Do you know how to add a file to the jar? Is it just done by copying the
wsdl file to the classes folder?
I also have to still add a test for the feature. Trygve advised to use
maven project with two subprojects for the test. One that creates the
wsdl and one that includes it and builds code from it.
I plan to add this to the systests. CXF-2276 is finished.
Apart from this I think the additions should at least do no harm so it
is good to merge them to 2.2.x.
I also would vote to include the new sample to 2.2.x. The one feature
that the new example does not show anymore is how to turn on xsd
validation. But I think this feature
is not so important - especially for beginners.
Greetings
Christian
Daniel Kulp schrieb:
> Christian,
>
> I've gone ahead and merged the changes for CXF-2275 and CXF-2276 onto 2.2.x
> since the changes are completely additive (shouldn't break anything) and I
> don't expect 2.3 to be ready for a little while (I know I don't have time to
> finish the stuff I was working on right now). These are great new things
> with little impact so getting them out is good, IMO.
>
> Are those JIRA's now "resolvable" or is there more work required? Mostly
> just curious.
>
> I'm also interested in hearing peoples thoughts about merging the new
> wsdl_first sample to 2.2.x. I know it will be a bit more work for me
> (Progress has some internal tests that test some of the samples to make sure
> they don't break and these changes will break those tests. Not a big deal.),
> but I have to make those changes for trunk testing anyway so not a big deal.
>
> The new sample really is MUCH nicer than the old one. I think getting it out
> there is probably a good thing. Thoughts?
>
>
--
Christian Schneider
---
http://www.liquid-reality.de