Why don't we support the xfire annotations also? It would be pretty
easy for the code to check for both.
-dain
On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:59 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
When I created an XFire test client using the precompiled class
JAR file, I
kept getting nulls in most of the object members, and I finally
looked at
the SOAP going across and realized the members had the wrong
namespace. I
finally realized XFire saw the CXF-version annotations and simply
ignored
them, and use the class package name for the namespace of the
members.
What do you mean by annotations in this context? (@'s)? It sure is
true
that the CXF runtime is ignorant of the old XFire annotations and vica
versa, since we've changed all the packages. An @nnotation is just an
object in a class. No way can XFire see the new @nnotations, since
they
all got new names.
A jar of annotated classes has to go with the reader of the
annotations.
If you annotate using JAXB, then they can use any client stack that
supports JAXB. If you annotate using XFire, you're got to distribute
XFire. If you annotate with CXF/Aegis, then you need a compatible
runtime, namely, CXF.
If you 'annotate' using .aegis.xml files, there's reasonable hope,
however, that you can use either the CXF runtime or the older XFire
runtime. But no other kit will pay the slightest attention.
In my limited experience, it seems more common for server-providers to
tell their clients to pick the kit of their choice and use
wsdl2java to
build their own proxies.
So I reverted to using the earlier XFire-annotated JAR classes and
now it
works again. So I now realize that we can't really safely
publish a JAR
full of proxy objects and assume all of our customers can use it -
rather,
only customers using the specific stack (XFire 1.2) can make
correct use of
this JAR file.
So the question becomes - what is the standard way of providing
customers
with proxy objects? I'm guessing the answer is: "Let them use the
WSDL to
generate proxy objects with their chosen framework."
Does that make sense? Again, I'm still feeling my way past the basic
examples that we extended for our own use, so I'm "wet behind the
ears yet."
