Hi Gul;

Let me try to answer at least few of the questions

RawXMLMessageRecivers are at the top of the invocation of the service
implementation. RPC one is extension of RawXML Message reciver


If you recive RawXMLMessageReciver it does not manage data binding (As
name suggest .. ) it accept and respond with OMElements.

Apprently notion of "simple java class" of yours and same authors seem
to be different :)

If you are ready to handle XML .. you can do as the samples you mentioned does.

hope this helps
Srinath


On 10/1/06, Gul Onural <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




I am trying to understand how to write a service without using the
wsdl2java. Our service
interface uses fairly complex data types and current status of the wsdl2java
is not sufficiently
bug-free for my purposes.

I have spent quite a bit time to browse through the samples come with the
std distribution and
I would appreciate any help on the questions below:

- How does selection of the message receivers affect the service
implementation code?
For example my (very simple) test service works with RPC message receivers
but throws
type mismatch exception when I change the message receivers from RPC to
RawXML.

- What is the advantages/disadvantages of using RPC message receivers vs.
RawXML message receivers.

- About the service implementation class : Axis2 document claims that a
simple Java class can be
deployed as an Axis2 service (with a proper service.xml, etc…). However when
I look at some
sample services in the Axis2 distribution, their methods (operations) are
implemented to accept
OMElement as input and they return OMElement.
So, when do I need to deal with the OMElement, and when does a straight
forward Java class
can be used to do the job as a service.


Thanks,




--
============================
Srinath Perera:
  http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~hperera/
  http://www.bloglines.com/blog/hemapani

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to