+1. I personally have seen this many times. Many operations in WSDL which don't work. This will be a good feature I guess. May be we can have an option to retain the old behavior.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Sergey Beryozkin < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > >> Okay, thanks. >> >> No particular opinion about the WSDL pruning proposal then? >> > > IMHO it makes sense. If the endpoint exposes only one of many services > described in a wsdl there seems to be no need in keeping the rest of them in > a published wsdl. That said it might be a bit expensive to ensure the > 'unused' services are stripped. > > Is there any other reason in yourself being proposing it, other thna in a > published wsdl be verbose ? Say, a client code has issues figuring out which > service definition to use or something like that ? > > One possible complication here is that one service might return references > to transient services also defined in this wsdl. Say, Bank return WSA refs > to Account services. There might be no direct link between these 2 services > at a wsdl level so if a Bank endpoint is published and its published wsdl > instance won't contain a definition for Account then it might cause some > issues at a point when Account reference is used at a client side ? I'm not > sure if it actually will, but it's something which may need to be looked > at... > > Cheers, Sergey > > > >> Andrew. >> >> >> >> Andi Abes wrote: >> >>> >>> The soapAction is the logical name of the operation - so CXF is very >>> correct in not touching it. >>> A good practice is not to use hostnames for it, but rather URI's that >>> represent the logical purpose of the operation. >>> >>> The soap:address is obviously used to connect to the service, hence it >>> must be updated. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Andrew Clegg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:56 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Proposal -- removing irrelevent services from WSDL >>>> >>>> >>>> Hey folks, >>>> >>>> I have a WSDL-first project which contains several service >>>> >>> definitions, >>> >>>> each >>>> with a separate binding to a separate port type. >>>> >>>> When I go to the 'services' page for the WAR in Tomcat, I get a bunch >>>> >>> of >>> >>>> links like: >>>> >>>> http://myserver:8080/MyWar/services/ServiceOne?wsdl >>>> >>>> http://myserver:8080/MyWar/services/ServiceTwo?wsdl >>>> >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> Exactly the same WSDL, but published to different URLs. >>>> >>>> What would be really neat is if CXF could trim out the unused >>>> >>> services, >>> >>>> bindings and port type definitions when it publishes the WSDL. >>>> >>>> I know it already does some editing as the soap:address location >>>> attributes >>>> are correct. Would the maintainers be interested in a patch to do this >>>> >>> if >>> >>>> I >>>> volunteered? I *think* Axis2 does this, if I remember correctly, so >>>> >>> there >>> >>>> might be some usable code in there. >>>> >>>> Interestingly, I just noticed the soap:operation soapAction attributes >>>> >>> are >>> >>>> not updated the same way as soap:address is. They still have the >>>> >>> localhost >>> >>>> test URLs which I hardcoded into my WSDL. Is this intentional, or a >>>> >>> bug, >>> >>>> or >>>> a sign I've misconfigured something? (Does anything even use this?) >>>> >>>> Andrew. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> >>> http://www.nabble.com/Proposal----removing- >>> >>>> irrelevent-services-from-WSDL-tp20359717p20359717.html >>>> Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Proposal----removing-irrelevent-services-from-WSDL-tp20359717p20376006.html >> Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >
