I don't see any harm in giving the developers options. If they want to use advanced solutions, let them.
-----Original Message----- From: Doug Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:21 AM To: Norman, Eric; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 15284] New: - Proposed modification to Oper ationDesc You could create wrapper classes for each one where those new classes add the extra param for you (heck you could even automate the process that creates them based on the list of classes/methods you want to expose). True that's annoying but to me changing Axis is more annoying since I believe Axis should discourage people from doing the type of coding you've already done. While for you it might not have been that hard you probably had to learn more about the internals of Axis than you would have liked (or IMO should have been forced to). If Axis' docs/user's-guide gave clean solutions to these types of problems that didn't require more in-depth knowledge than possibly "how to write a handler" then I think the user community would be happier. I view overriding the methods mentioned in this thread as a very advanced topic/solution while the problem you've described isn't. IMO. -Dug "Norman, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/11/2002 01:08:45 PM To: Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS cc: Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 15284] New: - Proposed modification to Oper ationDesc The classes we are exposing as webservices are dual-use classes and we would rather not have to modify all our business logic classes to make axis happy. It seems to me that it is up to the provider to determine how to call the method. In our case, in the invokeMethod(..) method of our provider we resize the argValues array that is passed in, add our extra parameter where appropriate (in our case the 1st parameter), call the method and return the result. -----Original Message----- From: Doug Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 9:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 15284] New: - Proposed modification to OperationDesc Wouldn't a cleaner solution be to do what we do for the messageContext, which is stick it in some ThreadLocal data. You have a solution for adding a 1st parameter, but what if someone wants to add it at the end, or in the middle. Placing it in ThreadLocal storage would not require any changes to the WSDL. You can have a server side handler "set" the data and then in your app just "get" it - no changes require to Axis. -Dug [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 12/11/2002 12:51:30 PM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 15284] New: - Proposed modification to OperationDesc 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=15284>. 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=15284 Proposed modification to OperationDesc Summary: Proposed modification to OperationDesc Product: Axis Version: 1.0 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: Enhancement Priority: Other Component: Basic Architecture AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm working on an project where we want to expose our generic business logic classes as webservices. However, each of the methods in these classes expect the first parameter to be a server side (application context) object that should not be supplied by the client. A servlet filter creates the appContext object and makes it available for the server side classes to use (including our custom Axis Provider). In our custom Axis provider, we are overriding the invokeMethod(..) method to inject the appContext object into the argument array before invoking the method. That seems to work ok. However, the generated WSDL still has the offending (supplied on the server side) parameter in it which we don't want the client applications to have to worry about. Our initial thoughts on how to get rid of the parameter from the WSDL is to override the initServiceDesc(..) method in our custom Provider and remove the offending ParameterDesc from the OperationDesc object. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any method available to remove a parameter from an OperationDesc. What we really want to do is to supply our own list of ParameterDesc objects (with the offending one removed). There was a partially implemented setParameters(..) call already in the OperationDesc class. To make our solution work, we fixed/completed the implementation of the setParameters(..) method and made it public. We are now able to remove the parameter from the WSDL (by overriding initServiceDesc(..) in our provider) and it seems to work. If there are no objections, I'd like to have someone add this patch to the main source tree. Below is the source for the method we had to modify. ----------------------- In OperationDesc.java: ----------------------- /** * Set the parameters wholesale. * * @param newParameters an ArrayList of ParameterDescs */ public void setParameters(ArrayList newParameters) { parameters = new ArrayList(); //Keep numInParams correct. numInParams = 0; for( java.util.ListIterator li= newParameters.listIterator(); li.hasNext(); ){ addParameter((ParameterDesc) li.next()); } }
