Hi all,
I attached a patch to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1851
Would greatly appreciate if someone could apply it.
Thanks!
David
IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
Registered Number: 171387
Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne
Thanks David,
However svn-apply got a bit confused when I tried to apply the patch.
Did you create some new elements in your working copy and then move them
a different directory?
For example, svn-apply complains that the patch attempts to delete the
non-existent:
dsw/cxf-dsw/src/main/res
Yeah, I moved intent-map.xml from META-INF/osgi into a new directory
called OSGI-INF/cxf/intents in a few places. I also moved
remote-services.xml from META-INF/osgi to OSGI-INF/remote-services in a
few places...
FYI I created the patch using Tortoise 1.5.0 on Windows...
Cheers,
David
Eogha
Did you do the moves as a single step, or more like moving a to c via:
mv a b
mv b c
David Bosschaert wrote:
Yeah, I moved intent-map.xml from META-INF/osgi into a new directory
called OSGI-INF/cxf/intents in a few places. I also moved
remote-services.xml from META-INF/osgi to OSGI-INF/remot
I think this tool is designed to help with the creation and application
of more complicated changes such as you are dealing with.
http://www.orcaware.com/svn/wiki/Svnmerge.py
-Original Message-
From: Eoghan Glynn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 12:07 PM
To: de
Anyone else have a clue about Will Gomes thread titled: CXF Client
Proxy Factory bug?
This is a continuation of the discussion at
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-dev/200808.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've confirmed that this is still an issue in 2.2-SNAPSHOT, and I'd
like to start a discussion of solutions. I'll start by describing the
policy framework architecture,
Fred,
Long message...Defintely would like to see what Sergey says. :-)
On Wednesday 08 October 2008, Fred Dushin wrote:
...snip
> C. The policy alternative selection algorithm (the
> AlternativeSelector) is different on the inbound request and outbound
> response side
That would probably get me over this particular hump, and it would be
the least disrptive, because I have cases where my clients are barfing
because they are getting an actual response, followed by a fault.
On Oct 8, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
That said, I think the PolicyVerificat
Hi
I agree with what Dan suggested - logging a message in a
PolicyVerificationOutInterceptor should suffice in most cases. Few more
comments.
I think that asserting a policy on the outbound path makes sense only if
a specification for a given policy expression explicitly states that it
applies to
I would propose to add the following to UncheckedException and
corresponding "super" calls to all exceptions.
public UncheckedException(String code, ResourceBundle bundle,
Object...params) {
this(new Message(code, bundle, params));
}
public UncheckedException(String code, Th
11 matches
Mail list logo
