14 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:RE: WSDL2Java --server-side and --skeletonDeploy
It's not a new thing, it's a replacement of the --skeletonDeploy flag with
something simpler.
--skeletonDeplo
server-side
--noDeploy".
--Glen
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Butek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 1:56 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: WSDL2Java --server-side and --skeletonDeploy
>
>
> Sounds to me like you
:00 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: WSDL2Java --server-side and --skeletonDeploy
In most cases I believe people generating server-side implementation
frameworks are going to want the con
nt descriptors
This seems most intuitive and least verbose to me.
--G
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Butek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 12:22 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: WSDL2Java --server-side and --skeletonDeploy
>
>
&
on 03/11/2002 09:50:17 AM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:RE: WSDL2Java --server-side and --skeletonDeploy
I like the basic idea you're proposing here, but it seems like you're
overloading t
I like the basic idea you're proposing here, but it seems like you're overloading the
two options now.
How about:
--server-side means "generate server side code and deployment descriptors"
--noDeploy means "if --server-side is specified, don't bother with deployment
descriptors"
That seems
