Eddie, Thanks and my pleasure to do the patch. Once we have the changes and a build in the repo, Dims can work on the patch for axis2.
Thank you once again. Re: The validation part and the WSDL stuff, lets take it to the axis-list as you suggested. We can start by publishing the questions u had on it the last time we emailed. Regards, Rajith On 7/25/06, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rajith-- Yeah -- I started looking at the patch last night and have it up and running with the existing WSM tests passing. I've not done the work to just copy the source files annogen creates, but that's the easy part. :) Thanks for the patch! Dims-- No, we've not done a nightly build for a while. With Rajith's patch (and external eyes that need to be on a WSM distributable), I was going to start publishing a WSM snapshot to a Maven2 repo on people.apache.org/~ekoneil. Sound good? Eddie On 7/25/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > does beehive have a nightly build? are the snapshots published to any > maven repo? > > thx, > dims > > On 7/25/06, Rajith Attapattu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eddie, > > > > Dims also things its fine to include the generated AnnoBeans in the source > > treee and then remove the meta annotations from the spec files, thus > > avoiding the legal issue. > > > > Eddie, can u then check the patch and commit with nessacery changes. > > > > Note the task to generate AnnoBeans is commented out !!! > > Also u need to javac the generated source files from the new > > location within the source tree instead of the temp directory where it was > > generated. > > > > I will attach the generated source files as a patch. (pls add it to the main > > source tree) > > > > Let me know how it goes. > > If we can sort this out on the wsm side then I can sort it out on the axis2 > > side with Dims help :-) > > > > Eddie, thanks for your support. > > > > Regards, > > > > Rajith > > 1- 416- 482- 2661 x 308 > > > > On 7/24/06, Rajith Attapattu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hey Eddie, > > > > > > Thats what I thought too. Once we generate the AnnoBeans we can delete the > > > annotations from the spec file. > > > We can include the generated source as part of the permanent source tree. > > > > > > Since this is a spec file there is no need to generate the AnnoBeans over > > > and over as the spec files are static, hence the generated source never > > > change. > > > So lets do that if you are ok with it. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rajith > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/24/06, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > A'right -- mail is in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Will be interesting to see > > > > how that conversation turns out. :) Interested parties should follow > > > > the discussion there. > > > > > > > > Eddie > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/23/06, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Rajith-- > > > > > > > > > > Hey -- something came up this weekend and I am just getting back to > > > > > this now. My gut is that this type of metadata modification to an API > > > > > class isn't going to fly (mail about this shortly); since the annogen > > > > > beans are just generated from the annotations themselves, can we just > > > > > hand code them to match the JSR-181 annotations? > > > > > > > > > > Will take a look at the patch... > > > > > > > > > > Eddie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/23/06, Rajith Attapattu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Eddie, > > > > > > > > > > > > any update on the issue? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajith > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/20/06, Rajith Attapattu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally forgot about sending the patch, but finnaly did it > > > > today. > > > > > > > Please review it and let me know your comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We still need to figure out the legal issue about adding an > > > > annotation to > > > > > > > the spec class. > > > > > > > (Does annogen have a way around without annotatiing the classes, > > > > for it to > > > > > > > generate the AnnoBean classes.???) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.) Generating Annogen beans for meta data > > > > > > > > The annogen task that generates code based on the annotated > > > > classes > > > > > > > > seems to have a bug with inner classes. > > > > > > > > For example WebParam.Mode gives compilation errors as it > > > > cannot the > > > > > > > > handle the inner class > > > > > > > > So I eidted the generated source file to get it working. (I > > > > maybe > > > > > > > wrong > > > > > > > > here...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is still an issue :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajith > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/11/06, Rajith Attapattu < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oops, didn't think it was that serious about modifying the spec > > > > classes. > > > > > > > > But can u please let me know about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >[eko] Not sure I follow this -- let me take a look at it and > > > > I'll get > > > > > > > > >back to you. > > > > > > > > I didn't even submit the patch for this part. I will do so. > > > > > > > > Please take a look at it then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really gratefull for your assitance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajith > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/11/06, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajith-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comments on both of your questions below... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.) Annogen requires you to annotate the annotation classes > > > > with > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > following annotation > > > > > > > > > > Now are we allowed to modifty the JSR api classes to add the > > > > above > > > > > > > > > lines of > > > > > > > > > > code ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [eko] This is a *great* question :) and probably the first > > > > time > > > > > > > > > we've run into this at Apache. If you were asking to add a > > > > *method* > > > > > > > > > to a type described in a specification, the answer would be no > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we can't change spec classes. Since it's metadata, I don't > > > > know the > > > > > > > > > answer -- my gut would be that we can't change the metadata on > > > > a > > > > > > > > > specification class, but it's a question worth asking > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > just to see what folks think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.) Generating Annogen beans for meta data > > > > > > > > > > The annogen task that generates code based on the > > > > annotated > > > > > > > > > classes > > > > > > > > > > seems to have a bug with inner classes. > > > > > > > > > > For example WebParam.Mode gives compilation errors as it > > > > cannot > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > handle the inner class > > > > > > > > > > So I eidted the generated source file to get it working. > > > > (I > > > > > > > > > maybe wrong > > > > > > > > > > here...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [eko] Not sure I follow this -- let me take a look at it and > > > > I'll get > > > > > > > > > back to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) >
