Nirmal Mukhi wrote:
Yes, I think so too. Back when we were defining this I believe we planned to make it optional, this might just have been a typo. Anybody have issues with making it optional? All this would require would be a change to the doc that described the java binding extensions and a (probably minor) change to the java provider.hi,
Also exactly the same argument applies to the EJB binding extension, where I believe the method name should be optional too, and should default to the WSDL operation name.
i think that optional in both cases make sense and even more importantly makes easier to write WSDL bindings so we should do this
alek
--
"Mr. Pauli, we in the audience are all agreed that your theory is crazy. What divides us is whether it is crazy enough to be true." Niels H. D. Bohr
