Re: Can't generate a Java interface from a WSDL portType
Scott Kurz wrote: Simon, The question is do we look at the definitions of the WSDL document defining the imported portType or the definitions of the document defining a WSDL service in terms of the imported portType (since the TNS of each are different). I haven't read all of JAX-WS either but agree that the CXF behavior makes more sense. If you consider the question which definitions? it seems you'd naturally pick the one in which the portType is actually DEFINED as opposed to merely IMPORTED From what I can see the WSDL spec doesn't say anything particular about the import behavior either. On the one hand this isn't too critical since, with either choice, we generate a just-as-legal @WebService(targetNamespace) into the Java to capture the original TNS. Doesn't this raise the same question? The @WebService annotation for the generated Java interface should have the targetNamespace of the portType. It seems an extremely reasonable assumption that this is the same targetNamespace of the portType (whatever that means) that will be used to derive the package name. I tried this with the Sun RI and was surprised that it took the targetNamespace for the @WebService annotation from the portType's wsdl:definitions, even though it took the targetNamespace for the package name from the service's wsdl:definitions. This inconsistency seems wrong to me. My conclusion is that CXF has got this right. On the other hand, JAX-WS could have been clearer on this... I agree. And this seems like a warning that in cases where the spec is ambiguous, we should not assume that we can use the Sun RI's behaviour to determine which interpretation is correct. Simon On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:45 AM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: Scott Kurz wrote: Sebastien, I'm surprised the package names would be different.What is the namespace you're using that isn't mapping to the same package in each tool? Just curious... My app is an order processing app with the following: WSDL service namespace: http://sample/Order/Binding WSDL Order portType namespace: http://sample/Order The CXF tool generates interface sample.order.Order The JAXWS RI tool generates interface sample.order.binding.Order I gave the same WSDL file (containing the WSDL service) to both tools. One could argue that both are correct vs the JAX-WS spec as they generate a correct package name from the namespace of 'the' WSDL definition, but the funny thing is that they do not pick the same WSDL definition... JAXWS-RI picks the input definition given to the tool and CXF the definition that actually contains the portType... and the JAXWS spec doesn't seem to state which one should be picked (at least I couldn't find it). IMHO the CXF behavior is better, but I've not read all 150 pages of the JAX-WS spec so I may be missing something :) From section 2.2 of the JAX-WS spec: A wsdl:portType element is mapped to a Java interface in the package mapped from the wsdl:definitions element (see section 2.1 for a description of wsdl:definitions mapping). Section 2.1 says: A wsdl:definitions element and its associated targetNamespace attribute is mapped to a Java package. JAXB[10] (see appendix D) defines a standard mapping from a namespace URI to a Java package name. By default, this algorithm is used to map the value of a wsdl:definitions element's targetNamespace attribute to a Java package name. } Conformance (Definitions mapping): In the absence of customizations, the Java package name is mapped from the value of a wsdl:definitions element's targetNamespace attribute using the algorithm defined by JAXB[10]. So IMO the Java package name that's used to map the portType should be derived from the targetNamespace of the wsdl:definitions element. What was this targetNamespace? Simon
Re: Can't generate a Java interface from a WSDL portType
Folks, I tend to agree with Simon, that the package name would rightly be derived from the target namespace of the wsdl:definitions/ containing the portType definition, since it's the port type that defines the interface. So +1 to the CXF interpretation. On the other hand, there is a JAX-WS TCK. Does it test this piece of function I wonder...? Yours, Mike. Simon Nash wrote: Scott Kurz wrote: Simon, The question is do we look at the definitions of the WSDL document defining the imported portType or the definitions of the document defining a WSDL service in terms of the imported portType (since the TNS of each are different). I haven't read all of JAX-WS either but agree that the CXF behavior makes more sense. If you consider the question which definitions? it seems you'd naturally pick the one in which the portType is actually DEFINED as opposed to merely IMPORTED From what I can see the WSDL spec doesn't say anything particular about the import behavior either. On the one hand this isn't too critical since, with either choice, we generate a just-as-legal @WebService(targetNamespace) into the Java to capture the original TNS. Doesn't this raise the same question? The @WebService annotation for the generated Java interface should have the targetNamespace of the portType. It seems an extremely reasonable assumption that this is the same targetNamespace of the portType (whatever that means) that will be used to derive the package name. I tried this with the Sun RI and was surprised that it took the targetNamespace for the @WebService annotation from the portType's wsdl:definitions, even though it took the targetNamespace for the package name from the service's wsdl:definitions. This inconsistency seems wrong to me. My conclusion is that CXF has got this right. On the other hand, JAX-WS could have been clearer on this... I agree. And this seems like a warning that in cases where the spec is ambiguous, we should not assume that we can use the Sun RI's behaviour to determine which interpretation is correct. Simon On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:45 AM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: Scott Kurz wrote: Sebastien, I'm surprised the package names would be different. What is the namespace you're using that isn't mapping to the same package in each tool? Just curious... My app is an order processing app with the following: WSDL service namespace: http://sample/Order/Binding WSDL Order portType namespace: http://sample/Order The CXF tool generates interface sample.order.Order The JAXWS RI tool generates interface sample.order.binding.Order I gave the same WSDL file (containing the WSDL service) to both tools. One could argue that both are correct vs the JAX-WS spec as they generate a correct package name from the namespace of 'the' WSDL definition, but the funny thing is that they do not pick the same WSDL definition... JAXWS-RI picks the input definition given to the tool and CXF the definition that actually contains the portType... and the JAXWS spec doesn't seem to state which one should be picked (at least I couldn't find it). IMHO the CXF behavior is better, but I've not read all 150 pages of the JAX-WS spec so I may be missing something :) From section 2.2 of the JAX-WS spec: A wsdl:portType element is mapped to a Java interface in the package mapped from the wsdl:definitions element (see section 2.1 for a description of wsdl:definitions mapping). Section 2.1 says: A wsdl:definitions element and its associated targetNamespace attribute is mapped to a Java package. JAXB[10] (see appendix D) defines a standard mapping from a namespace URI to a Java package name. By default, this algorithm is used to map the value of a wsdl:definitions element's targetNamespace attribute to a Java package name. } Conformance (Definitions mapping): In the absence of customizations, the Java package name is mapped from the value of a wsdl:definitions element's targetNamespace attribute using the algorithm defined by JAXB[10]. So IMO the Java package name that's used to map the portType should be derived from the targetNamespace of the wsdl:definitions element. What was this targetNamespace? Simon
Re: Can't generate a Java interface from a WSDL portType
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried this with the Sun RI and was surprised that it took the targetNamespace for the @WebService annotation from the portType's wsdl:definitions, even though it took the targetNamespace for the package name from the service's wsdl:definitions. This inconsistency seems wrong to me. My conclusion is that CXF has got this right. That's interesting. Seems like wsimport might have a bug then if they're not in synch with themselves. (And sorry my earlier comment here was meaningless.) On the other hand, JAX-WS could have been clearer on this... I agree. And this seems like a warning that in cases where the spec is ambiguous, we should not assume that we can use the Sun RI's behaviour to determine which interpretation is correct. Simon Good point. Scott
Re: Can't generate a Java interface from a WSDL portType
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: Scott Kurz wrote: Sebastien, I'm surprised the package names would be different.What is the namespace you're using that isn't mapping to the same package in each tool? Just curious... My app is an order processing app with the following: WSDL service namespace: http://sample/Order/Binding WSDL Order portType namespace: http://sample/Order The CXF tool generates interface sample.order.Order The JAXWS RI tool generates interface sample.order.binding.Order I gave the same WSDL file (containing the WSDL service) to both tools. One could argue that both are correct vs the JAX-WS spec as they generate a correct package name from the namespace of 'the' WSDL definition, but the funny thing is that they do not pick the same WSDL definition... JAXWS-RI picks the input definition given to the tool and CXF the definition that actually contains the portType... and the JAXWS spec doesn't seem to state which one should be picked (at least I couldn't find it). IMHO the CXF behavior is better, but I've not read all 150 pages of the JAX-WS spec so I may be missing something :) From section 2.2 of the JAX-WS spec: A wsdl:portType element is mapped to a Java interface in the package mapped from the wsdl:definitions element (see section 2.1 for a description of wsdl:definitions mapping). Section 2.1 says: A wsdl:definitions element and its associated targetNamespace attribute is mapped to a Java package. JAXB[10] (see appendix D) defines a standard mapping from a namespace URI to a Java package name. By default, this algorithm is used to map the value of a wsdl:definitions element’s targetNamespace attribute to a Java package name. } Conformance (Definitions mapping): In the absence of customizations, the Java package name is mapped from the value of a wsdl:definitions element’s targetNamespace attribute using the algorithm defined by JAXB[10]. So IMO the Java package name that's used to map the portType should be derived from the targetNamespace of the wsdl:definitions element. What was this targetNamespace? Simon
Re: Can't generate a Java interface from a WSDL portType
Simon Nash wrote: Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: Scott Kurz wrote: Sebastien, I'm surprised the package names would be different. What is the namespace you're using that isn't mapping to the same package in each tool? Just curious... My app is an order processing app with the following: WSDL service namespace: http://sample/Order/Binding WSDL Order portType namespace: http://sample/Order The CXF tool generates interface sample.order.Order The JAXWS RI tool generates interface sample.order.binding.Order I gave the same WSDL file (containing the WSDL service) to both tools. One could argue that both are correct vs the JAX-WS spec as they generate a correct package name from the namespace of 'the' WSDL definition, but the funny thing is that they do not pick the same WSDL definition... JAXWS-RI picks the input definition given to the tool and CXF the definition that actually contains the portType... and the JAXWS spec doesn't seem to state which one should be picked (at least I couldn't find it). IMHO the CXF behavior is better, but I've not read all 150 pages of the JAX-WS spec so I may be missing something :) From section 2.2 of the JAX-WS spec: A wsdl:portType element is mapped to a Java interface in the package mapped from the wsdl:definitions element (see section 2.1 for a description of wsdl:definitions mapping). Section 2.1 says: A wsdl:definitions element and its associated targetNamespace attribute is mapped to a Java package. JAXB[10] (see appendix D) defines a standard mapping from a namespace URI to a Java package name. By default, this algorithm is used to map the value of a wsdl:definitions element’s targetNamespace attribute to a Java package name. } Conformance (Definitions mapping): In the absence of customizations, the Java package name is mapped from the value of a wsdl:definitions element’s targetNamespace attribute using the algorithm defined by JAXB[10]. Yeah I read that too. Again, both implementations comply with that text but pick different definitions. That's all. So IMO the Java package name that's used to map the portType should be derived from the targetNamespace of the wsdl:definitions element. What was this targetNamespace? See above: http://sample/Order Simon -- Jean-Sebastien
Re: Can't generate a Java interface from a WSDL portType
The Apache CXF tool issues a warning but still gens Java w/ JAXB databindings from a portType WSDL. On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SCA allows you to define service interfaces using either WSDL or Java (and potentially other languages too). The SCA Java API and Annotations spec v1.0 says (section 1.9) says that the JAX-WS WSDL to Java mapping rules are used to generate Java interfaces from WSDL. I have a WSDL file describing my interface using a portType and I've been trying the JAXWS wsimport Maven tool for about an hour now with no luck. Looks like wsimport requires a WSDL service, which I don't have, and don't want to have to write in my WSDL (it wouldn't make much sense to have it on an interface anyway). Is Tuscany providing a WSDL interface/portType to Java generation tool? Is anybody out there using WSDL and Java interfaces? Any luck? What JAX-WS compliant tool are you using to generate your Java interfaces? -- Jean-Sebastien
Re: Can't generate a Java interface from a WSDL portType
Raymond Feng wrote: Hi, I got the CXF code-gen plugin 2.1 working after debugging the plugin source code :-(. Here is the pom.xml snippt I figured out. Please note I had to override wsdlRoot/testWsdlRoot to be a non-existing file to avoid NPE (I assume it's CXF bug if the wsdl files are in src/test/resources/wsdl). ... That worked for me too. The generated output is slightly different from the JAXWS RI wsimport (different package name for the generated interface for example) but it looks OK. Thanks! -- Jean-Sebastien
Re: Can't generate a Java interface from a WSDL portType
Sebastien, I'm surprised the package names would be different.What is the namespace you're using that isn't mapping to the same package in each tool? Just curious... On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raymond Feng wrote: Hi, I got the CXF code-gen plugin 2.1 working after debugging the plugin source code :-(. Here is the pom.xml snippt I figured out. Please note I had to override wsdlRoot/testWsdlRoot to be a non-existing file to avoid NPE (I assume it's CXF bug if the wsdl files are in src/test/resources/wsdl). ... That worked for me too. The generated output is slightly different from the JAXWS RI wsimport (different package name for the generated interface for example) but it looks OK. Thanks! -- Jean-Sebastien
