Dennis/Amila,
The point was to allow for some "backwards compatible" growth of the schema
without requiring the clients to make changes. Not necessarily to avoid
validation entirely. If I understand correctly, JAXB 2 is limited to Java
5. Unfortunately, I am working in a Java 1.4 environment. Is this a
feasible approach or do most people create new versions of the wsdl and
schema?
-Joshua
On 4/17/07, Dennis Sosnoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Amila,
When I try running the 1.2RC2 WSDL2Java with -d jaxbri I get:
[java] Exception in thread "main"
org.apache.axis2.wsdl.codegen.CodeGenerationException:
java.lang.RuntimeException: java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException
[java] at
org.apache.axis2.wsdl.codegen.CodeGenerationEngine.generate(
CodeGenerationEngine.java:255)
[java] at org.apache.axis2.wsdl.WSDL2Code.main(WSDL2Code.java:32)
[java] at org.apache.axis2.wsdl.WSDL2Java.main(WSDL2Java.java:21)
...
[java] Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
[java] at
org.apache.axis2.jaxbri.CodeGenerationUtility.processSchemas(
CodeGenerationUtility.java:105)
[java] ... 8 more
This is the same error I got when I tried with RC1, as reported in Jira:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-2431 The same WSDL (and
schema) works fine with ADB and JiBX data bindings.
- Dennis
Dennis M. Sosnoski
SOA and Web Services in Java
Training and Consulting
http://www.sosnoski.com - http://www.sosnoski.co.nz
Seattle, WA +1-425-939-0576 - Wellington, NZ +64-4-298-6117
Amila Suriarachchi wrote:
>
>
> On 4/17/07, *Dennis Sosnoski* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> JAXB 2.0 should do this, though I was unable to get JAXB to work
with
> the Axis2 1.2RC1 WSDL2Java. Has anyone been successful in using JAXB
> with Axis2?
>
>
> Can you test with RC2? Are you refering the bug which does not include
> jaxb- runtime jars and jaxb template to
> axis2-jaxb.jar?
>
> JiBX will also handle this. Unlike JAXB 2.0, with JiBX it's not the
> default behavior. In the JiBX binding you need to set
> flexible="true" on
> any <mapping> or <structure> element where you want to allow unknown
> elements.
>
> In general it's not a good approach to do this kind of schema
> extension
> (especially for web services, where the schema definition should
> be part
> of the service contract). If you want to allow for extensions, use
an
> xs:any element as a wildcard that allows for other elements to be
> added
> in the future. Otherwise you're not actually following the schema,
> which
> defeats the whole purpose of having one in the first place.
>
> - Dennis
>
> Dennis M. Sosnoski
> SOA and Web Services in Java
> Training and Consulting
> http://www.sosnoski.com - http://www.sosnoski.co.nz
> Seattle, WA +1-425-939-0576 - Wellington, NZ +64-4-298-6117
>
>
>
> Amila Suriarachchi wrote:
> > As I understood you are looking for an databinding framwork
> which does
> > not do any validation. try jaxb.
> >
> > On 4/16/07, *Josh* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Amila,
> >
> > If I configure a databinding approach to work with the
> following XML:
> >
> > <person>
> > <firstName>John</firstName>
> > <lastName>Doe</lastName>
> > </person>
> >
> > Which databinding approaches will not break if I pass in the
> > following XML:
> >
> > <person>
> > <firstName>John</firstName>
> > <lastName>Doe</lastName>
> > <age>25</age>
> > <sex>M</sex>
> > </person>
> >
> > While most client applications may not want to interpret the
new
> > information, I want to make sure that I can recommend a
binding
> > approach that does not cause a ripple effect when new items
are
> > added to the schema. Does this clarify what I am looking for?
> >
> > -Joshua
> >
> >
> > On 4/16/07, *Amila Suriarachchi*
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/14/07, *Josh* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I am looking to determine which client side data
> binding
> > choices (castor, jibx, jaxb etc) allow backwards
> > compatible schema changes (eg addition of a new field)
> > without throwing an exception.
> >
> >
> > What you exactly mean by backword compatible schema?
> > e g. if you add a new element to a complex type with
> > minOccurs 0 then this should work properly with the
> requests
> > you got earlier as well. But in this case it the way you
> write
> > schema and it has nothing to do with the databinding frame
> > work as far as it correctly interpret the schema.
> >
> >
> > I am hoping to recommend some solutions to my
> clients that
> > would allow me to make backward compatible schema
> changes
> > without causing a ripple effect. Has anyone come
across
> > this information?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Joshua
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amila Suriarachchi,
> > WSO2 Inc.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amila Suriarachchi,
> > WSO2 Inc.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Amila Suriarachchi,
> WSO2 Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
