I have read the complete thread and I know I am chiming in a little late. One common exception type generated for each Schema element is clearly the optimal mapping for Java.
If I declare method1 and method2 to throw the same exception in the server side, I expect WSDL2Java (or whatever wrong name you guys picked :-) to generate a single Exception on the client side for this service. The exceptions should be named after the element types. Axis 1.x did it this way, and Axis2 should too. Tom Jordahl Adobe Server Development -----Original Message----- From: Glen Daniels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:54 PM To: Axis-Dev Subject: [axis2] WSDL2Java / Java2WSDL and Faults (PLEASE CHIME IN?) Hi folks! We're here at the hackathon, and these two issues came up: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-2778 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-2792 They both revolve around how to map faults to/from WSDL, and we'd like some input. Consider starting with the following class: package ns; class Service { void method1(void) throws CustomException {}; void method2(void) throws CustomException {}; } You'll end up with a WSDL that looks like (paraphrased): <schema targetNamespace="http://ns";> <element name="CustomException"> ... </element> </schema> ... <message name="{MSG}"> <element name="ns:CustomException"/> </message> ... <operation name="method1"> <input/> <output> <fault message="{MSG}"/> </operation> <operation name="method2"> <input/> <output> <fault message="{MSG}"/> </operation> I've left MSG as a variable because that's the real question here. In particular, should MSG be based on a) just the Exception type (i.e. "CustomException"), or b) the method (i.e. "method1Fault"). If we go with (a), then we would generate only ONE message for both of the above operations' faults and share it. If we go with (b) we would generate TWO separate messages in the WSDL, both referring to the same element. Now the second part revolves around how to behave when running WSDL2Java from WSDL. Should we generate: 1) class {MSG} extends RemoteException { } (i.e. use the message name regardless, meaning we'd generate multiple exception types for multiple messages sharing an element) or 2) class CustomException extends RemoteException { } (i.e. use the element type regardless of message name) Currently, for Java2WSDL we use approach (b), generating message names based on the method name. For WSDL2Java we use approach (1), generating fault types based on the message name. If multiple messages share the same element, we'll all have them use the same fault class (based on the message name, not the element name). The current approach is somewhat inconsistent and confusing. We should EITHER have WSDL2Java generate one fault per message (if the faults are named after message names), letting the Java classes be different even though the elements are the same, OR have it dig in to the element and name the faults after the element types, and sharing the fault type among any operation that uses that element in a fault message. Thoughts and comments appreciated. Thanks, --Glen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
