+1
- James M Snell/Fresno/IBM
Web services architecture and strategy
Internet Emerging Technologies, IBM
544.9035 TIE line
559.587.1233 Office
919.486.0077 Voice Mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Programming Web Services With SOAP, O'reilly & Associates, ISBN
0596000952
==
Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified,
do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you
go.
- Joshua 1:9
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: TCK issue: beans with full constructors?
The TCK requires generated beans to have full constructors. In other
words, if a bean has properties
int x;
String y;
then you must have a constructor
Bean(int x, String y);
We DO NOT have a full constructor in axis for a number of reasons. I
believe the TCK SHOULD NOT require the full constructor. Let me know
whether you think this is a legitimate argument to take to the JAX-RPC
folks.
1. I don't ever recall seeing that a full constructor is required by any
bean spec.
2. JAX-RPC itself does not explicitly require it.
3. If the WSDL complexType contains <xsd:sequence>... then the order is
fixed. But if the complexType contains <xsd:all>... then you CANNOT know
the order and therefore cannot depend on a bean being generated with some
particular order. When you're programming to a bean, you have no idea
whether this bean was generated from sequence or all, so you cannot depend
on any given order.
4. We in AXIS support attributes as well as elements. Attributes are
optional in JAX-RPC, so it doesn't say anything about how they exist in a
bean. How would they appear in a full constructor? First? Last? What
if they're optional? Do the appear in the constructor at all? Since we
only have the default constructor, these issues don't exist.
For these reasons we've decided NOT to generate full constructors. For
reasons 1, 2, 3, I don't believe the TCK should require them.
Granted the following code:
Bean bean = new Bean(5, "hi");
is simpler to write than:
Bean bean = new Bean();
bean.setX(5);
bean.setY("hi");
But I think I've explained why the former isn't acceptible. Any other
thoughts?
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
