Actually, I'm suggesting that <namespace></namespace> is equivalent to no <namespace> at all, i.e. the namespace MUST be "" (the default) for incoming XML.
I'm pretty sure it's possible to generate bodies with no namespace. --Glen > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12923] - Message Services > don't support m > uliple methods anymore > > Just to be clear, if the Body _does_ have a namespace but the > WSDD does > _not_ have the <namespace> element will it work (like it used > to)? If so, > then I think I'm ok with this. I don't think its possible to > generate a > Body w/o a namespace right now. I think when I tried Axis complained. > -Dug > > > Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 09/23/2002 12:50:46 PM > > Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: > Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12923] - Message Services > don't support > m uliple methods anymore > > > > Namespace does matter in the RPC case, but we will try to fall back to > ignoring it, which I think is actually a BAD thing, and I also think > ignoring it is especially bad for doc/message services. > > If you want to have no namespace (i.e. <method>) that should > be fine, but I > think we shouldn't just accept anything. We're going to need to emit > schema for this stuff eventually, and that should dictate > what people send. > > How about this: > > We'll generate OperationDescs for every allowed method on > Message-based > services. If you specify QNames in the WSDD, they'll be mapped as per > usual to those methods. If you don't, we will use the > namespace of the > service as specified in the WSDD to generate QNames, > defaulting to "". So: > > <service name="foo" provider="java:MSG"> > <parameter name="allowedMethods" value="*"/> > <parameter name="className" value="Foo"/> > </service> > > public class Foo { > public Element [] method1(Element [] arg); > public Element [] method2(Element [] arg); > } > > will look for "<method1>" and "<method2>". If you add: > > <namespace>http://foo</namespace> > > to the WSDD, we'll then look for "<ns:method1 > xmlns:ns='http://foo'>", etc. > > --Glen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 12:33 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12923] - Message Services don't support > > muliple methods anymore > > > > > > DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG > > RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT > > <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12923>. > > ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND > > INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. > > > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12923 > > > > Message Services don't support muliple methods anymore > > > > > > > > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-09-23 > > 16:32 ------- > > Does the namespace matter in the RPC case? Not sure, but I > > don't think it does. > > My inclination would be to get it back to the way it was so that > > it doesn't break existing users. If its possible to extend it so > > that it will _also_ support the notion of namespace > qualification then > > that could be added in addition to the non-NS qualification support. > > > > >
