I am not a committer, but I have implemented a service with serializers
and deserializers.
> What do you mean when you say "one class implements both interfaces"?
> I looked at the source and I don't see that. For example, Deserializer doesn't
>extend or implement
> DeserializerFactory and the reverse isn't true either.
Deserializer: You have to provide a class which implements the interface
org.apache.axis.encoding.DeserializerFactory. The important method is
getDeserializerAs. This method should return an instance of a class
which implements the interface org.apache.axis.encoding.Deserializer
(Tip: extend org.apache.axis.encoding.DeserializerImpl).
The factory thing is needed because you cannot use one deserializer for
recursive element use : <tag>...<tag>...</tag>...</tag>.
You can implement both interfaces in one class.
In wsdd you hava to point to a class which has a method:
public static DeserializerFactory create(Class javaType, QName
xmlType)
or a class which implements DeserializerFactory Interface and has one of
these constructors
public <constructor>(Class javaType, QName xmlType) *preferred*
public <constructor>()
Serializer: You have to provide a class which implements the interface
org.apache.axis.encoding.SerializerFactory. The important method is
getSeserializerAs. This method should return an instance of a class
which implements the interface org.apache.axis.encoding.Seserializer.
You can implement both interfaces in one class.
In wsdd you hava to point to a class which has a method:
public static SerializerFactory create(Class javaType, QName
xmlType)
or a class which implements SerializerFactory Interface and has one of
these constructors
public <constructor>(Class javaType, QName xmlType) *preferred*
public <constructor>()
Hope this is correct and it helps.
Ciao Harald
> I'd be surprised if one of the committers doesn't know the answer to this question
>off the top of their head
> ... no investigation required. I'm pleading for them to tell us the answer and put
>this issue to rest. I don't
> want to be annoying and just keep asking the same question over and over again.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Gross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 7:49 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: serializers and deserializers
>
> Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I did some investigation (actually
>needed to
> know about this myself as well) and experimented with my own examples.
>
> You need to provide a factory, which creates the appropriate serializer or
>deserializer.
> The only reason why I can figure that both are shown is because the one class
> implements both interfaces.
>
> Christian Gross
>
> At 12:13 04/04/2002 -0600, Volkmann, Mark wrote:
>
> When specifying a type mapping in WSDD,
> does the serializer attribute have to refer to a class that implements
>Serializer or can it refer to a
> class that implements SerializerFactory?
>
> Likewise, does the deserializer attribute have to refer to a class that
>implements
> DerializerFactory or can it refer to a class that implements Deserializer?
>
> I've been unable to extract answers to these questions from the source code.
>
>
>
>
>**************************************************************************************
> WARNING: All e-mail sent to and from this address will be received or
> otherwise recorded by the A.G. Edwards corporate e-mail system and is
> subject to archival, monitoring or review by, and/or disclosure to,
> someone other than the recipient.
> **********************
> ****************************************************************
>
> Christian Gross
> Software Engineering Consultant
> http://www.devspace.com
> North America: 1-450-675-4208
> Europe +41.1.701.1166
>
>
>
>
>***************************************************************************************
> WARNING: All e-mail sent to and from this address will be received or
> otherwise recorded by the A.G. Edwards corporate e-mail system and is
> subject to archival, monitoring or review by, and/or disclosure to,
> someone other than the recipient.
>
>***************************************************************************************
