There is no difference between the two. beanMapping is just a convenience.
-- Tom Jordahl Macromedia Server Development -----Original Message----- From: Mitch Gitman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: beanMapping or typeMapping? I have a Java interface with bean-compliant classes I want to make into a web service. Running Java2WSDL, I get a bunch of complexType elements for these classes. Fine. Next, I want to produce the deploy.wsdd and then the server-config.wsdd. Running WSDL2Java generates a bunch of classes analogous to my original classes. I figure, "Heck, ignore these. Stick with my own." But WSDL2Java also generates a deploy.wsdd with a typeMapping element for each of these auto-generated classes. Each typeMapping has serializer and deserializer attributes. If I'm just using my own classes on the server, I wonder if I'm better off just using beanMapping elements sans (de)serializer attributes. Under what circumstances is beanMapping preferable to typeMapping? ============================================= Here's the relevant passage from docs/reference.html: <typeMapping qname="ns:localName" classname="classname" serializer="classname" deserializer="classname"/> Each typeMapping maps an XML qualified name to/from a Java class, using a specified Serializer and Deserializer. <beanMapping qname="ns:localName" classname="classname"> A simplified type mapping, which uses pre-defined serializers/deserializers to encode/decode JavaBeans. The class named by "classname" must follow the JavaBean standard pattern of get/set accessors.
