I agree with Guy's point. However, I think Shantanu's point is correct that wsdl2java shouldn't need a 100% of the WSDL. I've worked with Tibco's BusinessWorks project and if memory serves, they used a partial WSDL to generate the service along with some configuration values to complete the binding information.
On the flip side, since wsdl2java needed the full wsdl with bindings, we've been able to send that wsdl to our in-house clients before the service was operational. Thus allowing for parallel development. Working with the wsdl as the source is highly recommended. If the notion of manually creating 100% of the wsdl seems daunting, start with a skeleton interface, and run java2wsdl. Then abandon the skeleton as your service matures to it's first release and swap the ANT script targets from java2wsdl to wsdl2java. Hope it helps, -james Quoting Guy Rixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think the Java binding tools have to work with the WSDL binding; the > port-type is not enough. Consider the difference between rpc/literal and > document/literal bindings for the same port-type: the document one puts the > message parts directly inside the SOAP body and the rpc one interposes an > element named after the operation. This affects the parsing and needs to be > coded into the fixed stubs. > > On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Shantanu Sen wrote: > > > I am looking at the 'start with wsdl' approach of > > building a web service. > > > > If I follow this approach, I can use either an editor > > or any tool to build the abstract part of a WSDL - > > i.e. with no binding or service elements. Ideally, > > since I have defined the abstract interface I should > > be able to run a tool to generate the java artifacts > > and proceed from there. > > > > But the standard WSDL2Java tool does not generate the > > java interface from the portType information unless a > > binding element is added to the WSDL. The tool > > generates complex types that are exchanged in the > > interface methods correctly, but not the actual > > interface from the portType. > > > > I am looking for any inputs about people's experience > > with the 'start with WSDL approach'. Should I hand > > generate a default binding and then use the WSDL2Java > > and move from there? Or is there any better option? > > > > Thanks, > > Shantanu Sen > > > > Guy Rixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Institute of Astronomy Tel: +44-1223-337542 > Madingley Road, Cambridge, UK, CB3 0HA Fax: +44-1223-337523 >
