In order to get overloaded operations to work, you must distinguish them in
the binding.  If you notice, there are two identical <wsdl:operation name
="getContactCollection"> clauses in the binding.  They cannot be identical.
That's bad WSDL (which, unfortunately, WSDL2Java doesn't recognize).  What
you have to do is name the input and output clauses in the portType and
binding so they can make the correllation.  Otherwise the binding has no
way to know which bindingOperation refers to which portType operation.

In other words, the portType operations could look like:

      <wsdl:operation name="getContactCollection" parameterOrder="in0">
         <wsdl:input name="gcc1" message
="intf:getContactCollectionRequest"/>
         <wsdl:output name="gcc1" message
="intf:getContactCollectionResponse"/>
      </wsdl:operation>
      <wsdl:operation name="getContactCollection" parameterOrder="in0">
         <wsdl:input name="gcc2" message
="intf:getContactCollectionRequest1"/>
         <wsdl:output name="gcc2" message
="intf:getContactCollectionResponse1"/>
      </wsdl:operation>

And the binding operations would similarly name the input and output
clauses.

Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


"David L. Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/05/2002 09:53:22 AM

Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:    WSDL2Java - overloaded method problem



(See attached file: stubs.zip)

Hi all,

I am getting a duplicate method declaration in my generated stubs as a
result of an
overloaded method. I have attached all related files including the stubs,
wsdl, and interface
for my webservice. I have seen alot of mail related to this problem...I
thought you had fixed this problem
previously.

While on the stub topic, has any thought gone into providing an option for
specifying some
sort of properties file (or maybe going off of the wsdd) which allows the
specification of typemappings
that could be deployed on the client and allow the stubs to auto-gen the
typemapping registrations
from the file?

Any comments on this matter?

Thanks,
David Cole



Reply via email to