Thanks Anne, someone has suggested WASP before. I haven't looked at it at all because I'm quite happy with what I'm using now. If .NET starts giving me problems I might look into it. Just off hand, do you know whether it "double-wraps" arrays like .NET does? (refer bug#13980) This is something I like about the .NET system because I want to be able to differentiate between empty and null arrays. Martin
----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Thomas Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:38 AM Subject: RE: Document style web services > Martin, > > If you're just looking for a java2wsdl tool that generates doc/literal, I > suggest you try Systinet WASP. (www.systinet.com) The tool is included in > the WASP Server for Java product. It's free for development. (A commercial > license is only required to deploy services in WASP Server.) > > Anne > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Jericho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 7:02 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Document style web services > > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > I spent about a week playing around with axis to see why it wasn't working > > for me, and simplifying test cases to find out the causes. I did post a > > couple of bug reports on bugzilla, but no-one has even commented on them > > yet. I really did want to stick with axis, but in the end I had to make a > > decision which was expedient for my project, which was to > > generate the WSDL > > using .NET. I can't afford to spend the time investigating and > > writing bug > > reports for axis when there is another solution which works perfectly for > > me. > > > > I didn't report any of the other bugs primarily because they were too > > numerous, and it takes a significant amount of time to write up a > > bug report > > that is truly useful to the developer. They were also quite > > fundamental, so > > would be easily detected by anyone else creating even the simplest of > > services. This also makes me think they may have already been > > addressed in > > the nightly builds. > > > > Nightly builds bring up a whole new area of gripes. Firstly, it always > > turns out to be a major pain, involving a fair amount of guesswork, to > > upgrade to even a release version of axis. This is because our > > project uses > > jakarta projects such as torque (which btw we are now quite desperate to > > abandon), and velocity, and each expects different versions of the commons > > libraries, xerces and log4j. The problem is that none of the jakarta jar > > libraries contain any version information whatsoever, so it is always > > guesswork to figure out which one is using the latest version, and very > > often they are not even backwards-compatible. Axis itself is no better in > > this regard. The jar file is always called axis.jar, with no version > > suffix, and the manifest file never includes a version number > > either. I am > > not willing to use a nightly version of axis in production, and only use > > beta versions of tools when there is no alternative. What would > > be great is > > if there were a CVS branch created after 1.0, which included only > > bug fixes > > that are then released in "service packs". I know this means > > more work for > > you guys, but in the real world you can't expect companies to use nightly > > builds unless they are heavily involved in the product's development like > > Macromedia is. > > > > Even writing a response like this takes up valuable development > > time (which > > I can afford at the moment because the server just kicked the bucket!). I > > don't apologise for not taking more time to contribute to axis, > > it's just a > > reality. > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom Jordahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 5:53 AM > > Subject: RE: Document style web services > > > > > > > > > > Martin, > > > > > > Can you please try Java2WSDL with the latest nightly build and > > report any > > bugs you find in Bugzilla? > > > We want this to work! I hope you will find that the latest source fixes > > most (all?) of the major problems. > > > > > > Thanks > > > -- > > > Tom Jordahl > > > Macromedia > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Martin Jericho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 5:32 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Document style web services > > > > > > > > > Dennis, > > > > > > My experience is that Java2WSDL in Axis 1.0 has too many bugs > > to generate > > > document/literal style WSDL, but if you can generate it by some other > > means, > > > the WSDL2Java and bean marshalling seem to work fine. > > > > > > The reason you can't have multireferencing in document style calls is > > > because the document is validated against the schema. If you define the > > > schema to allow IDs and REFs on every element, you can implement the > > > multirefs yourself, but this would make your schema virtually > > unreadable, > > > very complicated, and probably less robust. > > > > > > Martin Jericho > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Dennis Sosnoski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 7:03 AM > > > Subject: Re: Document style web services > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anne, > > > > > > > > Does Axis support automatic marshalling of document-style messages? I > > > > was under the impression it does not, which was why I suggested a > > > > DataBindingProvider might be useful to add this support. I agree that > > > > document-style is a better approach for the future, though I'd hardly > > > > call it a "predominant consensus" at this point. AFAIK document style > > > > interfaces are not as widely supported as RPC style, though, and I'm > > > > surprised to see your statement that most SOAP implementations support > > > > automatic marshalling for document style. Can you give me any figures > > > > for this? > > > > > > > > As for "no problem building automatic serializers" I have to > > disagree. A > > > > Schema definition does not, in general, provide enough information to > > > > directly map to Java data structures. If you use an approach where the > > > > data structures are either pre-generated from the Schema or > > constrained > > > > to obey a predefined mapping to and from the Schema you can get around > > > > this, but that's hardly automatic. > > > > > > > > I'm also puzzled by your statement that it's difficult handle > > > > multi-referencing object structures using document style. Is there a > > > > reason this can't be handled with ID/IDREF or key/keyref links? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > - Dennis > > > > > > > > Dennis M. Sosnoski > > > > Enterprise Java, XML, and Web Services Support > > > > http://www.sosnoski.com > > > > > > > > Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > > > > > > > >Dennis, > > > > > > > > > >This is a pretty antiquated view of document style. Document style is > > no > > > > >longer used just for XML messaging. Most SOAP implementations support > > > > >automatic marshalling of both RPC-style and document-style > > messages. As > > > long > > > > >as you have a WSDL description of the message structure, there's no > > > problem > > > > >building automatic serializers. > > > > > > > > > >The predominant consensus in the industry at this point is to use > > > > >document-style by default. Document style is much easier to validate, > > > > >transform, and manipulate. The primary reason to consider using > > > rpc/encoded > > > > >is if you need to send multi-referencing object structures. SOAP > > encoding > > > > >does a really nice job marshalling these structures. It's much harded > > to > > > > >represent them using literal XML Schema. But if you're not using > > > multi-refs, > > > > >it's a better practice to use document-style. > > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > >Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > > > >>From: Dennis Sosnoski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > >>Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:25 PM > > > > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >>Subject: Re: Document style web services > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>Hi Matt, > > > > >> > > > > >>The whole point of document style is that your application > > gets passed > > > > >>the XML message payload as XML document fragments. See the "message" > > > > >>sample for an example of this. With a document style interface your > > > > >>class would look like: > > > > >> > > > > >>public class SomeXMLService { > > > > >> public Element[] someXMLMethod(Element[] elems) { > > > > >> ... > > > > >> } > > > > >>} > > > > >> > > > > >>If you want to convert the XML into objects you need to do it > > yourself, > > > > >>perhaps using a framework such as Castor (http://www.castor.org). I > > know > > > > >>there's been some integration of Castor with Axis, though I > > think this > > > > >>was for custom serialization with RPC style. > > > > >> > > > > >>This brings up an interesting point, though. Why not have a Java > > > > >>DataBindingProvider as a replacement for the MsgProvider? > > This should > > > > >>allow easy use of document style while converting seamlessly between > > XML > > > > >>and objects without the application needing any special code. I'm > > > > >>looking into some data binding code currently, perhaps I'll see if I > > can > > > > >>work in this direction. > > > > >> > > > > >> - Dennis > > > > >> > > > > >>Dennis M. Sosnoski > > > > >>Enterprise Java, XML, and Web Services Support > > > > >>http://www.sosnoski.com > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
