Good idea! User's Guide, here I come...
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Jordahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/14/2002 09:07:54 AM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: WSDL2Java doc/li
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WSDL2Java doc/literal port type interface
It is VERY unfortunate that the interface needs information from both the
portType AND the binding. This is a topic of discussion for WSDL version
2.
JAX-RPC says (section 4.3.3): "The name of the Java interface is mapped
holm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/13/2002 05:24:30 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:WSDL2Java doc/literal port type interface
I have noticed that the newest code from cvs generates a port type
interface using the wsdl:portType name when rpc/en
I have noticed that the newest code from cvs generates a port type
interface using the wsdl:portType name when rpc/encoded is used, but if
doc/literal is used the wsdl:binding name is used. Is there any particular
design rationale behind this? I think it seems to break the idea of not
exposing
