You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@basistech.com> on 2007/09/07 02:31:26 UTC

CXF-669

I've got a failure in the CXF-669 unit test.

 

A namespace isn't being added to the WSDL.

 

I'm trying to figure out how the namespaces are set up in this case. I
don't see the code coming through the usual WSDLServiceBuilder, but I'm
probably confused. If anyone can explain the theory of operation here
I'd be grateful.

 

--benson

 


RE: CXF-669

Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@basistech.com>.
The problem was a complaint that http://foo.com/HelloWorld didn't have a
prefix. This appears to result from a long=standing bug. You can see the
fix in the patch for CXF-972 that I've posted. I claim that the fix
(adding a prefix for the tns of an import) is a good thing independent
of the rest of the 'tns' project that is addressed in 972.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Mao [mailto:james.mao@iona.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:14 AM
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CXF-669
> 
> Benson Margulies wrote:
> > I've got a failure in the CXF-669 unit test.
> >
> 
> 
> What's the failure looks like?
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > A namespace isn't being added to the WSDL.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out how the namespaces are set up in this case.
I
> > don't see the code coming through the usual WSDLServiceBuilder, but
I'm
> > probably confused. If anyone can explain the theory of operation
here
> > I'd be grateful.
> >
> >
> >
> > --benson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Re: CXF-669

Posted by James Mao <ja...@iona.com>.
Benson Margulies wrote:
> I've got a failure in the CXF-669 unit test.
>   


What's the failure looks like?


>  
>
> A namespace isn't being added to the WSDL.
>
>  
>
> I'm trying to figure out how the namespaces are set up in this case. I
> don't see the code coming through the usual WSDLServiceBuilder, but I'm
> probably confused. If anyone can explain the theory of operation here
> I'd be grateful.
>
>  
>
> --benson
>
>  
>
>
>