My picture for the EJB Ws are that the WS stack do the XML->java conversion of the invocation and then hand java representatons over to the EJB Continaer to do the invocation and return the result to WS stack. [I know in thoery the "Invocation" object should be added to the intercepter stack]. Then WS-stack will do the Java ->XML conversion and send it back.
I hope what I am saying fits here, I too belive that the SOAP/HTTP(XML)-> java conversion should not be put inside EJB class as it is the WS-Stack's job Thanks Srinath On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:22:01 -0800, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2005, at 4:15 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > From another reply David wrote: > > > >> I should state more clearly what I mean by this. CMP/BMP EntityBeans > >> or Stateful SessionBeans will not have a Web Service Stack, neither > >> will Stateless SessionBeans that only have Local or Remote > >> interfaces. > >> > >> In fact, in the case where people are just chatting from Servlets to > >> EJB's through Local interfaces, we don't need any protocol stacks at > >> all, e.g. no CORBA, no EJBd, no HTTP/SOAP. This is partly why it > >> weirds me out to add protocol specific things into the > >> GenericEJBContainer class. > >> > > > > now that you put it that way I agree. I might change my mind at any > > time... but this seems like a very strong argument. > > > > If you think of anything neat to add/remove, I'm all ears. > > -David > >
