See http://atmanes.blogspot.com/2005/03/wrapped-documentliteral-convention.html.
Anne On 8/27/06, William Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anne, I notice you've mentioned it in other replies too, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'using the wrapped convention'. Would you mind elaborating or providing a link? Thanks, William > -----Original Message----- > From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 25 August 2006 11:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [axis2] Naming of the Request message by Java2WSDL > > If you are using the wrapped convention, then the request > message element MUST be the same as the operation name. If > you prefer to use unwrapped doc/literal, you can name the > request element anything you want, but then you must also > provide information to Axis (via the > WSDD) as to how to map the incoming QName to the appropriate method. > > Anne > > On 8/23/06, William Ferguson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The message elements and wsdl types that Java 2WSDL > generates for the > > request portion of a Service method have the same name as > the method > > itself, while the response portion is of the form > <methodName>Response. > > > > IMHO, for clarity it would be better for the the request > elements to > > follow the same pattern as that for the response elments. Eg for a > > method with signature: > > > > public String getMyMethod(String someParam); > > > > It would be better to generate an operation element like: > > <wsdl:operation name="getMyMethod"> > > <wsdl:input > message="axis2:getMyMethodRequestMessage"/> > > <wsdl:output > message="axis2:getMyMethodReponseMessage"/> > > </wsdl:operation> > > > > Message elements like: > > <wsdl:message name="getMyMethodRequestMessage"/> > > <wsdl:message name="getMyMethodResponseMessage"/> > > > > And WSDL types of: > > <xs:element name="getMyMethodRequest"> > > <xs:complexType> > > <xs:sequence> > > <xs:element name="return" > > type="xs:string"/> > > </xs:sequence> > > </xs:complexType> > > </xs:element> > > <xs:element name="getMyMethodResponse"> > > <xs:complexType> > > <xs:sequence> > > <xs:element name="return" > > type="xs:string"/> > > </xs:sequence> > > </xs:complexType> > > </xs:element> > > > > Doing so makes it much clearer in both the WSDL and in > clients using > > the generated stubs and data bindings (IMHO). Does anyone > else concur? > > If so I'll create an issue for it. > > > > William > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
