<ras>
*******************************************
Richard A. Sitze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CORBA Interoperability & WebServices
IBM WebSphere Development
Russell Butek/Austin/IBM@IBMUS | 
06/13/2002 06:03 PM |  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]
