Sorry, my bad, I did not realize they were actually different tests, I will
revert them.
Glen
Sergey Beryozkin-5 wrote:
>
> Hi Glen
>
> thanks for trying to clean up the tests, but I'd actually like them
> retained, but I agree some code optimization needs to be done though,
> please
> note,
No probs :-), I can take care of minimizing the duplicate code
thanks, Sergey
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
>
> Sorry, my bad, I did not realize they were actually different tests, I will
> revert them.
>
> Glen
>
>
> Sergey Beryozkin-5 wrote:
> >
> > Hi Glen
> >
> > thank
Can you post an xml fragment example please ? is it JAX-WS that you use ?
cheers, Sergey
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Aaron Ehrensberger <
aehrensber...@docfinity.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does CXF have an issue with preserving leading whitespace inside XML
> responses? Is there something spe
I think Robert's idea is solid overall. The command line tools should
have good help text and the Apache hosted docs should be presented in
a uniform manner.
However, we cannot ask outside entities to conform to our standards.
Corporate tech writing departments all have their own sets of
standards
Benson,
In your opinion, should CXF-3056 be merged to 2.3.1 or not?You mention
it's not exactly compatible so I'm guessing not, but I'd like to make sure.
If not, we'll need to start the 2.4 migration guide and add the note about it.
--
Daniel Kulp
dk...@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog
Dan,
I can't believe that anyone is using it the way I wrote it, and I
consider the old behavior pretty seriously broken. So, I'd like to
take the position that 2.3.1 is mopping up some 2.3.0 leftovers, and
go ahead and push it out. If someone complains, I'll add compatibility
control code for 2.3
On Thursday 11 November 2010 4:49:46 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
> Dan,
>
> I can't believe that anyone is using it the way I wrote it, and I
> consider the old behavior pretty seriously broken. So, I'd like to
> take the position that 2.3.1 is mopping up some 2.3.0 leftovers, and
> go ahead and pu
Hi,
I'm trying to implement a customize org.apache.cxf.transport.Destination by
extending AbstractDestination. In the Destination interface there is a
method called getBackChannel() and the description reads like:
"Retreive a back-channel Conduit, which must be policy-compatible with the
current
