Np with the delay, I'm surviving fine with my patches. :) I thought the case might be something like this and the soap2 looked really promising. No need to hurry, at least just for me. As my patches work for now, I can wait for an actual release. And I /urge/ you not to waste any time on expanding the soon-to-be-legacy soap-component.
Btw., what's the status with xfire?
From: "Guillaume Nodet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sorry to answer with such a delay. The wsdl11 wrapper is not supported yet, this is one of the purpose of the new soap2 module. The consumer part is in a usable state and I have something ready to commit on the provider side, but I'm waiting for some recent jetty snapshots to be published (I guess I will upload some to our private repo soon). So I'm not really at ease with changing the current endpoints to add a non complete support for the wsdl 1.1 wrapper ... If you want to test it, I can commit the work I did on the provider endpoint ... On 3/29/07, Janne Savukoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I had some issues with soap messages not being serialized properly, > header/body handling (binding) etc. I'm using the wsdl11-wrapping and > I don't know if it has something to do with this. Anyways, at least it > looks like the binding stuff is being discarded at > org.apache.servicemix.http.HttpEndpoint:228, but I don't know if the > part handling (soap binding) was occurring before that; although, the > end-results weren't suggesting so. (All parts were serialized to the > soap body, or something.) So I hacked up this little patch which does > the part handling. Diffs attached. Best effort -kind of stuff, works > for me. Just if anyone else is interested.. Though, I didn't quite get > what HttpEndpoint#overrideDefinition was trying to do so that hack may > be a little conflicting.. (see the httpendpoint-patch.) > > I'd also like to know if this would somehow work without the patch as > patches are a bit annoying. :) > > (There also appears to be some major stuff coming in the soap2-module, > but it seemed a little incomplete so I didn't take a closer look.) > > Btw., I guess the soap-headers of the reply message are being > forwarded correctly?
