Hi Chathura! > I was just observing that we no longer extend our Configuration (or > Axis* , AxisOperation, etc) from the relevant WSDL component. > eg AxisOperation (use to) extends WSDLOperation. > > I thought that was a nice thing to do because our WOM builder has the > flexibility of building objects out of factory. That is you can ask > the WOM builder to build a AxisOperation object rather than a > WSDLOperation by registering a (AxisDescWSDLComponentFactory). IMO it > is a cleaner way to build the configuration objects rather than > keeping the object inside and delegating ALL the methods which it does > right now. > > Is there any good reason why we did this change?
Sure :) ... how about because it was *never* used as the relevant WSDL component? Other than that, there's a mismatch too .. we currently tag AxisService as implementing WSDLService. But that's not really true - an AxisService represents the entire service, not just the <service> element. OTOH AxisOperation may have info that may have come from both portType/operation and binding/operation .. so its not a perfect match, Also, we created WOM as a start towards a WSDL2 component model. Unfortunately Woden didn't take over and use that stuff .. so right now WOM works as a WSDL representation which is independent of WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0. We could in theory remove WOM IMO but it'll require a huge amount of work because even the codegen stuff uses it heavily. So I'm not for doing that work now .. its a potential refactoring that could be considered after Woden ships and we really have 2 true WSDL models available to deal with. What are the arguments for keeping it? Sanjiva.
