Benson, The @RequestWrapper and @ResponseWrapper annotations are used to let the jax-ws frontend know the classes to use for the wrappers.
Note: this is one of the things that differentiates CXF from the jax-ws reference implementation. With the RI, if you don't have "hand coded" Wrapper classes, for wrapped/doc/lit, you pretty much HAVE to run "wsimport" to have it generate the wrapper types for you. (it also generates fault beans as JAXB cannot handle subclasses of Exception) The RI uses those at runtime in all cases. With CXF, if the wrapper classes are not there, we try to handle it ourselves. This is NOT easy as we cannot just delegate down to JAXB and still meet the jax-ws spec(which is why the RI doesn't do it). Many of the "code first" bugs in 2.0 and 2.0.1 were around the use cases of no wrapper classes available. The workaround in most cases was to call java2wsdl with the -s flag to have it generate the wrapper types like the RI does. (this ends up very equivilen to wsimport) For 2.0.2, we fixed many of the non-wrapper object cases, and 2.0.3 fixes even more. Dan On Sunday 11 November 2007, Benson Margulies wrote: > I'm beginning to see the light of this tunnel coming swiftly toward > me. > > WrappedOutInterceptor never has a Java object corresponding to the > entire part. It improvises the XML at the part level, and presumably > calls upon the DataWriter to write the individual elements inside the > part. (Here's more code with a strong fondness for 'ns*' namespace > prefixes, in spite of whatever's in the WSDL or schema.) > > Correspondly, the WrappedInInterceptor does it the hard way unless > there is a wrapper type. For my testing purposes, a wrapper type sure > would be convenient, so I guess that finding out how to negotiate one > with JAX-WS / JAXB would be a smart thing to do. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Benson Margulies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:54 AM > > To: Daniel Kulp > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: CXF-1197 > > > > This JIRA claims that the schemaInfo associated with a > > MessagePartInfo is for the wrong part - in fact, for the wrong > > message altogether. Emphasis on 'claims,' I'm always prepared to be > > confused. -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
