Sanjiva, If we generate xmlbeans databinding code, we still end up calling JAM to compose a schema. Which is wrong! IMHO. We should get the xsd from the xmlbeans generated code itself. See Axis 1.X's XmlBeanSerializer's writeSchema method, it picks up the schema at runtime for a specific class. FYI, the WSDD reference has it under beanMapping/typeMapping for each specific class (not for schema as a whole)
As for ADB, there is a namespace for a specific bean, but there is no way to get that information at runtime. So either we need a mechanism to "get" the schema information from the ADB generated classes or we have to keep it in services.xml. -- dims On 1/9/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 for optional service/@targetNamespace. How about > s/targetNamespace/namespace/ ?? The idea of "target" doesn't seem to > make sense to me in that setting. > > I don't see why we'd need to keep a namespace for schemas .. the XSD > representation better keep that or we're in trouble anyway. I don't see > it in the WSDD ref either. Can someone indicate why we need XSD > namespaces please? > > Sanjiva. > > On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 23:38 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > <kidding> > > Where have i seen a similar construct before :) > > http://www.osmoticweb.com/axis-wsdd/service.htm > > </kidding> > > > > Seriously...How about like this? we may end up doing other stuff > > inside <schema/> > > <service name="foo" scope="transport" targetNamespace="http://x.y.z";> > > <schema targetNamespace="http://x.y.z"/> > > </service> > > > > thanks, > > dims > > > > On 1/8/06, Deepal Jayasinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all; > > > > > > when we generate code using WSDL , it generates services.xml as well . So > > > we > > > need to keep its targetNamespaces in some where otherwise when we write > > > them > > > back we will lose them (see JIRA 365). Therefore we need to keep them , in > > > the mean while if service author wants to give targetNamespace for his > > > service he should be able to give that too , so I think we need have room > > > for that in services.xml. So what do you think about the following > > > approach > > > .. > > > > > > <service name="foo" scope="transport"> > > > <schematargetNamespace qname=""> > > > <targetNamespace qname=""> > > > </service> > > > > > > and those are optional , so if those are not there in services.xml then we > > > will pick the default as now . pls comment your idea soon since there is a > > > blocker on this issue. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Deepal > > > ................................................................ > > > ~Future is Open~ > > > > > > > > > -- > > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
