When you add a new element to your type, how the client is impacted really depends on how the deserializer has been coded assuming it relies on Axis serializers/deserialiers. (It is not really a java issue : Note that stubs have already been generated) Ideally bean deserializer should simply ignore elements that don't have corresponding fields in the bean.
BTW, I may be missing something but isn't service style (Literal, Wrapped etc) is really a service provider issue. Service provider may be written in message style but the client may be depending on serialization/deserialization. Sanjay --- Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cory, > > If you're using MESSAGE style services, then, yes, I > would expect the > client to be able to handle the change -- no sweat. > If you're using RPC, > WRAPPED, or DOCUMENT style, I would expect the > deserializer to barf. Java's > not too good at handling the dynamic introduction of > a new element in an > object. > > Anne > > At 12:31 PM 8/26/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >All, > > > >We've recently added a new member to an object > being returned in our > >response payload. Basically we've added a simple > type to a complex type > >that clients are used to consuming. We've > appropriately updated our WSDL > >and I've updated our custom serializer to return > the new member. My > >question is this -- should existing clients that > have generated stubs > >prior to the addition of the new member play > nicely? I would expect the > >introduction of a new element (especially a simple > type wrapped up in a > >known complex type) to have little effect on > existing stubs but it seems > >like at best you'd wind up with indeterminable > results. From what I can > >tell -- Axis client tools choke if the payload > changes even at the most > >trivial level, .NET tools manage to ignore the > introduced element. I'm > >not saying either platform is right or wrong -- I > just hate the idea of > >having to get partners to regen stubs because of > the addition of a new > >member if they don't need access to that member. > > > >Certainly, the purist in me says "introduce a new > service" -- but the > >practical side of me says that client tools should > ignore elements that > >they weren't originally made aware of. > > > >Thoughts? > >Cory > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
