Wolfgang –  

 

Can you communicate the exact use case and maybe provide an example?  I’ve become a bit familiar with the serialization subsystem, but I’m not clear on your exact requirements. 

 

For example, do you desire to:

 

Retain the default QName->object type mappings?

Override the default QName->object type mappings?

Extend the type map with new QName->object mappings?

Translate default QNames into alternative QNamess?

 

Are the above scenarios based on a specific service endpoint, or used across the entire server?

 

There are already a fair amount of switches inside Axis to register alternative Type mappings and serialization techniques, so from first glance, it seems like you could build on top of the framework.

 

/Chris

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: WSDL-Service Payload encoding/decoding to/from different "XML"-Formats

 

Hello,

 

In a project I have to transform the communication between an AXIS-Client and a SOAP-Service

directly to another XML-Format or Object Model. For that I need, similar to that what is already

realised in AXIS, a Type Mapping between the Service Type (RPC-Parameter-Types) and the

"local"-Types (Object Model).

 

Where is the best point to integrate such a mapping?

 

One option would be, directly to use the Stubs, as produced by WSDL2Java, generating

from these informations the transformators for type mapping.  

 

Looking at this option, I have the feeling to reimplent a lot of things already implemented

in the AXIS-Encoding-Subsystem.

 

Therefore comes up the other option, to integrate this type-mapping directly in the

Encoding-Subsystem with special extended factory classes and

serializers/deserializers.

 

Would this be the preferable solution?

 

Are there some papers around, giving a more global view on the

AXIS-Encoding Subsystem?

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Regards,

Wolfgang

 

Reply via email to