Hi Dan,
I had to do an manual install of opensaml-1.1.jar in my local repo in
order to get a 2.0.x build to work.
Is the opensaml stuff up on some obscure maven-repo that I need to add
to my ~/.m2/settings.xml?
Cheers,
Eoghan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dkulp
Date: Wed Jun 4 07:58
On Jun 6, 2008, at 6:55 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
Hi Dan,
I had to do an manual install of opensaml-1.1.jar in my local repo
in order to get a 2.0.x build to work.
That's not good.
Is the opensaml stuff up on some obscure maven-repo that I need to
add to my ~/.m2/settings.xml?
Yea.
I'm trying to dig into CXF-1547 to try and get the "proper" fix in
place. Basically, I'm trying to make sure all the
InterceptorProviders are properly examined and in a consistent
order.We basically have 5 interceptor providers:
Endpoint
Binding
Service
Bus
Client (client side on
I'm with ya on the need for consistency here. I honestly have no idea which
one will perform best, but I think either options is reasonable.
I'll throw one more thing out - we could possibly make Server an
InterceptorProvider if we wanted a mirror to the Client InterceptorProvider.
I'm not sure if
On Jun 6, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
I'm with ya on the need for consistency here. I honestly have no
idea which
one will perform best, but I think either options is reasonable.
The other option is to make in and out symetrical. Example:
Server in: bus, service, endpoint, bi
I would agree with making them consistent (deferring to your judgment of
the actual ordering), but one concern I would have would be about
backward compatibility--i.e., the interceptors no longer being activated
in the order the users are expecting as a result of this switch. Of
course, getting th
