I don't think the http endpoint can be used to bridge typical soap webservice calls, as there are some mismatches in the behavior between the soap protocol and the plain http protocol.
If I understand your scenario, you want to do something like from-cxf:A ---> to-cxf:A if ...some condition... from-cxf:A ----> to-cxf:B if ...some condition... and cxf:A-> cxf:B requires a minor namespace replacement, no? In that case, you can just use the PAYLOAD mode for all the cxf endpoints and configure the transform feature at the to-cxf:B endpoint to replace the namespace. 2015-01-19 17:29 GMT+01:00 Dirk Lattermann - expertplace <[email protected]>: > Hello, > > we need to build a proxy for an external request/reply SOAP web service. This > same service must be offered both unmodified (namespace A) and with a > different namespace B in the message schema. In both cases, some additional > routing decisions must be taken. > > For this, we have defined a CXF producer endpoint (using cxf:cxfEndpoint) in > POJO message format that addresses the external service, using their WSDL > (namespace A). The unmodified proxy on the consuming (input) side is also a > CXF endpoint in POJO format, using the same WSDL. A route forwards (after > some routing decisions) from this to the external service; this works. > > To offer the service with a different namespaces, we tried several approaches > without success. > > One possibility seems to be a CXF consumer endpoint in MESSAGE message format > that uses a StaxTransformationFeature to modify the namespace from B to A. > This endpoint uses a modified WSDL with namespace B instead of A. It must use > MESSAGE, not POJO, because the WSDL file with the modified message namespace > B would not match the transformed message in namespace A, which results in a > parsing (JAXB) exception from CXF. We would like to send the transformed > message to our own namespace A consumer endpoint to run through the normal > routing decisions mentioned above. We cannot use the POJO endpoint because > the message is in MESSAGE format. So, we tried POSTing the message using the > HTTP component: > > <route id="cxf-admin-nsmap-route"> > <from uri="cxf:bean:fc-admin-service"/> > <to > uri="http://${fc.endpoint.host}:${fc.endpoint.port}/${fc.admin_cxf_nsmod.endpoint.path}"/> > </route> > > This fails with > > Invalid uri: /fc/admin. If you are forwarding/bridging http endpoints, then > enable the bridgeEndpoint option on the endpoint: > Endpoint[http://$%7Bfc.endpoint.host%7D:$%7Bfc.endpoint.port%7D/$%7Bfc.admin_cxf_nsmod.endpoint.path%7D] > > /fc/admin is the path for the incoming request (defined by > cxf:bean:fc-admin-service), not the one defined in the to-uri > (${fc.admin_cxf_nsmod.endpoint.path}). > > We tried to add the bridgeEndpoint property as in > > <route id="cxf-admin-nsmap-route"> > <from uri="cxf:bean:fc-admin-service"/> > <to > uri="http://${fc.endpoint.host}:${fc.endpoint.port}/${fc.admin_cxf_nsmod.endpoint.path}?bridgeEndpoint=true"/> > </route> > > This fails with > > org.apache.commons.httpclient.URIException: Invalid authority > > > A different approach where we tried XSLT to transform the namespaces, use > JAXB unmarshalling and create a MessageContentsList to convert the message > into POJO format by hand which can then be sent into the routing decision > route directly leads to difficulties with marshalling the response back: the > namespace prefix for the type names in (as xsd in xsi:type="xsd:string") gets > lost. On top, this approach seems still uglier an less maintainable than the > first one I described. > > What might be a working and clean, simple, maybe even elegant solution to > this problem? It's simply mapping a message in one namespace to another! > > Thank you, > Dirk > >
