Heya,
"Here's a hint: XML is not object oriented. Don't try to apply OO
concepts."
This statement sort-of interested me. Does it really cause that much
interoperability? Or does it mean that the client side interpretation of the
schema might vary? Most of my experience is in Java/C++ (and I'm pretty new to
Axis), so I may be missing something. As Anne pointed out below, XML Schema
does allow for extending types - which is object-oriented flavoured. Even if
the original java contains a class that implements an interface, couldn't
someone take the schema from the WSDL, create a class that extends a base class
(replacing the original interface) in whatever language (java, C++, etc) and
still manage to run the service successfully? After all, whatever you're using
to initially gather the information on the client ends up as XML, right? If
you really wanted to have them use the interface-class combo on the client
side, you could provide them with a client jar that has manually edited classes
- but I know it's not a required element. Does this make sense or is there a
lot more to it?
Thanks,
Anna, curious
========================
SunGard Advisor Technologies
916-288-6431 ph
916-288-6500 fax
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this e-mail and in any
> attached files is confidential and intended for the internal use of the
> individual named in the e-mail. This information should not be duplicated or
> distributed unless an express written consent is obtained from SunGard
> Advisor Technologies in advance. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please notify me immediately and delete any attachments.
>
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 2:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: want to put interface declaration for my scheme objects
into wsdl?
Mick,
Schema elements and types aren't objects or classes, so they don't
implement interfaces.
You can define an abstract type, and then you extend that type by
extension or by restriction. Using abstract types is pretty much
guaranteed to cause you interoperability problems, though, so you
shouldn't do it.
Here's a hint: XML is not object oriented. Don't try to apply OO concepts.
Anne
On 6/26/05, Mick Knutson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to be able to define a standard set of interfaces for all my scheme
> classes.
> Can I somehow add an "implements=MySchemeInterface" in the complext types
> such as with:
>
> <xsd:complexType name="consumerActivityType"
> implements="com.baselogic.MySchemeInterface">
> <xsd:sequence>
> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" name="lastPinChangeDate" type="xsd:string"/>
> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" name="lastPersonalCodeChangeDate"
> type="xsd:string"/>
> </xsd:sequence>
> </xsd:complexType>
>
>
>
>
> Thank You
> Mick Knutson
>
> Sr. Java/J2EE Consultant
> BASE logic, inc.
> (415) 648-1804 (S.F., CA)
> http://www.BASELogic.com
>
> HP Consulting Services (Walnut Creek, CA)
>
>
>
