Sounds to me like your suggestion is something in addition to the --skeletonDeploy flag, right? Have we had anyone complain about generating the wsdd files? I vote not to add anything more before beta.
Russell Butek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/11/2002 12:35:00 PM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: RE: WSDL2Java --server-side and --skeletonDeploy In most cases I believe people generating server-side implementation frameworks are going to want the convenience of the generated deploy/undeploy files as well. Therefore, I think --server-side should continue to default to emitting them. This is great. So now it seems like the only option at this point is to say "please *don't* emit the deployment descriptors", which can be signalled by a single flag option called "--noDeploy". --server-side => gen impl and deployment descriptors --server-side --noDeploy => gen impl, no deployment descriptors This seems most intuitive and least verbose to me. --G > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell Butek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 12:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: WSDL2Java --server-side and --skeletonDeploy > > > You've lost me. The way it USED to work, you had 3 options > (2 really the > same): > - --server-side: generate deploy.wsdd (refers to Skeleton), > undeploy.wsdd, > Skeleton, Impl > - --server-side, --skeletonDeploy true: generate same as above > - --server-side, --skeletonDeploy false: generate > deploy.wsdd (refers to > Impl), undeploy.wsdd, Impl. > > Now I've simply removed the requirement of "--server-side" > from the last 2 > options. Explain to me the options you envision and what > gets generated > with each. > > Russell Butek > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/11/2002 09:50:17 AM > > Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: > Subject: RE: WSDL2Java --server-side and --skeletonDeploy > > > > > I like the basic idea you're proposing here, but it seems like you're > overloading the two options now. > > How about: > > --server-side means "generate server side code and deployment > descriptors" > > --noDeploy means "if --server-side is specified, don't bother with > deployment descriptors" > > That seems cleaner/less confusing to me. > > --Glen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Russell Butek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 8:57 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: WSDL2Java --server-side and --skeletonDeploy > > > > > > Glen brought up a good point to me this morning. I'm going > > to code it up. > > If anyone has serious doubts about it, please let me know ASAP. > > > > Right now --skeletonDeploy requires --server-side. If you > > don't specify > > --server-side with --skeletonDeploy, WSDL2Java fails. But > > Glen suggested > > that --skeletonDeploy should imply --server-side. Sounds > > like a good idea > > to me. > > > > So, if you only specify --server-side, it assumes > > --skeletonDeploy true and > > generates deploy.wsdd, undeploy.wsdd, Impl, and Skeleton. > If you only > > specify --skeletonDeploy, it assumes --server-side and generates > > deploy.wsdd, undeploy.wsdd, Impl, (and Skeleton only if > > --skeletonDeploy > > true). > > > > Russell Butek > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
