Hi KL, All,
On 16/12/11 22:34, K Fung wrote:
In 2.5.2 on later we can think of introducing an activator into the jaxrs
frontend so that it can discover custom Applications and providers
registered as OSGI services
Perhaps we should have a discussion on a separate thread to discuss how you
env
Hi,
On 16/12/11 22:34, K Fung wrote:
Hello,
I'm sorry - I should've put it into 2.5.1 - but it will definitely make
it into 2.5.2 - and I hope it would be of interest to users.
No worries Sergey. Thanks for all your helpful suggestions and guidance
while I worked on this in 2 week spurts.
On Monday, December 19, 2011 10:42:23 AM Jim Ma wrote:
> Okay. Then we should keep it as it was. I just saw these common classes to
> handle the same thing in different places : jaxb-xjc.jar , Sun's JDK,
> xml-resolver.jar. Looks like current way is the better option.
Yea. I think so. The on
HI, i have to consume a wcf service with token security in .net from java
client with eclipse and cxf library.
the service must recive two data in the header identificador1 and
identificador2.
In my code i have first a request header
Client client = org.apache.cxf.frontend.ClientProx
For the record, +1.
There is a TCK "regression" with this that the JBoss folks found, but not due
to differences in CXF on-the-wire behavior. The fix for CXF-3956 actually
exposed a different set of bugs in the the CXF WS-Addressing layer as the TCK
header check handlers were now installed p
We have 8 binding +1 votes. Thus, this vote passes. I'll get the artifacts
promoted.
Dan
On Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:37:45 PM Daniel Kulp wrote:
> We've resolved over 75 issues since 2.5.0 and thus is time for a release.
> We've also ported back over 40 of the fixes to 2.4.5 and 30 of
On Monday, December 19, 2011 9:54:14 AM Daniel Kulp wrote:
> We have 8 binding +1 votes. Thus, this vote passes. I'll get the
> artifacts promoted.
And add [RESULT] to the subject so it appears in the searches and such. :-)
Dan
>
> Dan
>
> On Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:37:45 PM Dani
There is a problem in the bus extension association under multiple
buses that may result in some concrete problem in some cases. I have a
possible fix for this problem but there is also a related question to
it. So, I would like to get your opinion about how we should proceed.
Concretely, the prob
Inline
On Monday, December 19, 2011 4:30:08 PM Aki Yoshida wrote:
> There is a problem in the bus extension association under multiple
> buses that may result in some concrete problem in some cases. I have a
> possible fix for this problem but there is also a related question to
> it. So, I w
2011/12/19 Daniel Kulp :
>
> Inline
>
> On Monday, December 19, 2011 4:30:08 PM Aki Yoshida wrote:
>> There is a problem in the bus extension association under multiple
>> buses that may result in some concrete problem in some cases. I have a
>> possible fix for this problem but there is also a
10 matches
Mail list logo
