[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1144?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12538860
]
Tawfik Lachheb commented on CXF-1144:
-------------------------------------
I agree but the response elements being that way does not look as bad as for
the request elements. Methods never return multiple objects so we are not
wrapping multiple objects into one for responses. For requests, the methods
take multiple parameters but we wrap them into one. Inthe .NET client stub we
get a lost of methods all taking one wrapper object as a parameter.
Regarding the complex type repetition, I agree we should not have it but could
request/response elements be an exception as opposed to elements representing
the object model? In our case some services don't have the same parameter
combination more than once and othes might have a combination repeated once or
twice at the most. Increasing the size a little would not hurt us as we are
more interested in the performance of the actual calls to the web service.
> Issue with .NET clients - stub method parameters wrapped in a parameter class
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CXF-1144
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1144
> Project: CXF
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Tawfik Lachheb
>
> We are trying to upgrade our published services from xfire to cxf. We are
> using the simple frontend with aegis. Before we push the upgrade to
> production, we need to make sure the upgrade as transparent as possible to
> our users. With cxf, we see that the .NET client stubs are different from
> the ones users are getting now from xfire. A method that appears as
> doIt(Thing a, Thing b) for example appears as dotIt(DoItRequest request)
> where DoItRequest contains the a and b parameters.
> I found out that doing a small change to the wsdl makes .NET generate the
> stubs the way we want them. Changing the method request element from this
> for example:
> <xsd:element name="findFeaturesByExtent" type="tns:findFeaturesByExtent" />
> <xsd:complexType name="findFeaturesByExtent">
> <xsd:sequence>
> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" name="extent" type="tns:Envelope" />
> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" name="spatialQueryOptions"
> type="tns:SpatialQueryOptions" />
> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" name="token" type="xsd:string" />
> </xsd:sequence>
> </xsd:complexType>
> to this
> <xsd:element name="findFeaturesByExtent">
> <xsd:complexType name="findFeaturesByExtent">
> <xsd:sequence>
> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" name="extent" type="ns0:Envelope"/>
> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" name="spatialQueryOptions"
> type="ns0:SpatialQueryOptions"/>
> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" name="token" type="xsd:string"/>
> </xsd:sequence>
> </xsd:complexType>
> </xsd:element>
> fixes the problem.
> Please let me know if you need any additional info.
> Thanks
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
