That's not simpler, it's different. From the user's guide:
-S, --skeletonDeploy <argument>
Deploy either the skeleton (true) or the implementation (false) in
deploy.wsdd. In other words, for "true" the service clause in the
deploy.wsdd
file will look something like:
<service name="AddressBook" provider="java:RPC">
<parameter name="className"
value="samples.addr.AddressBookSOAPBindingSkeleton"/>
...
</service>
and for "false" it would look like:
<service name="AddressBook" provider="java:RPC">
<parameter name="className"
value="samples.addr.AddressBookSOAPBindingImpl"/>
...
</service>
I don't see how --noDeploy has anything to do with that.
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/11/2002 01:44:14 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: WSDL2Java --server-side and --skeletonDeploy
It's not a new thing, it's a replacement of the --skeletonDeploy flag with
something simpler.
--skeletonDeploy has a "true"/"false" option to it, and whenever you
specify it either way you're now also getting the "--server-side" option
implied, which is, IMHO, confusing.
We're good in the common case, which is just "--server-side". I just think
"--server-side --skeletonDeploy true" is silly, and "--serverSide
--skeletonDeploy false" (which is really the only other option) makes more
sense as "--server-side --noDeploy".
--Glen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Butek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 1:56 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: WSDL2Java --server-side and --skeletonDeploy
>
>
> 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]
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
