I prefer -emitAll. A -all option could be interpretted in a number of
different ways (i.e. accept all)
Rich Scheuerle
XML & Web Services Development
512-838-5115 (IBM TL 678-5115)
Glen Daniels
<gdaniels@macrome To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dia.com> cc:
Subject: RE: emitAll option in
WSDL2Java
02/06/2002 10:44
AM
Please respond to
axis-dev
> Do we call it --all or --emitAll? I prefer --all for
> brevity. Neither "a"
> nor "e" have been used in the shorthand version of any other
> option, so we
> have no restrictions there.
+1 for --all
> What is the relationship between --all and --noImports? We can say a
> couple things:
> 1. --all supercedes --noImports
> 2. --all refers to elements in the immediate WSDL file but
> not in imported
> files.
> I think I prefer #2.
I think --all simply means "don't track references, just generate
everything in scope", where "in scope" is defined as per usual. If you
follow imports and --all is specified, you should generate everything
everywhere.
> If there are unused types that are generated by --all, then
> do those types
> go into deploy.wsdd? I would say no since the service itself
> doesn't use
> those types. But that would make the code a whole lot more
> complex. (I'd
> still say no, but I'd grumble as I implement it!)
I see no reason not to put the mappings into the deploy.wsdd if the types
get generated. At the very worst, this means a few unused <typeMappings>
which can be copied and pasted into other deployment descriptors quite
easily when/if those types get used in other contexts.
--Glen
