priate [de-]serializer.
Scott Nichol
- Original Message -
From: "Bill de hÓra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 4:47 AM
Subject: RE: Confusing issue on Maps
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Nichol [mailto:[EM
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Nichol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Thanks for getting us back to the original topic. Are you
> saying that you would like to have more of the Java data
> structure interfaces and classes (e.g. Collection, Map,
> subinterfaces and classes implemen
: Confusing issue on Maps
> To bring back the discussion to Maps and Collections, I think that they
should
> be better supported explicitly, so that I can have Collections in Maps and
so
> on, without trying to figure out what does actually happen deep inside
> classes, or superclasses.
> To bring back the discussion to Maps and Collections, I think that they
should
> be better supported explicitly, so that I can have Collections in Maps and
so
> on, without trying to figure out what does actually happen deep inside
> classes, or superclasses.
Thanks for getting us back to the o
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 22:54, Scott Nichol wrote:
> I am curious: how did Apache SOAP create "the initial illuision of
> distributed OO programming but could not support it in its full glory"?
I don't think the issue is "Is Apache SOAP a good implementation of SOAP?" but
more "Is SOAP good enou
- Original Message -
From: "Niclas Hedhman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: Confusing issue on Maps
> On Tuesday 02 July 2002 13:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I will conclude by totally ag
aragraph -- the scope
of
> application of SOAP is not clear to some. If one likes transparency at a
> distributed OO programming level use EJB/CORBA.
>
> Soumen Sarkar.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Nichol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 9
>
> Dear All,
>
> Niclas Hedhman wrote :
>
> > Parameter types are typically not a problem, since they are pretty much
> under
> > control and can be modified for the occassion. It is the content of
> objects
> > that really is annoying.
>
> > Don't get me wrong. I like SOAP and I like the Apache
- Original Message -
From: "Niclas Hedhman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 3:21 AM
Subject: Re: Confusing issue on Maps
> On Tuesday 02 July 2002 11:06, Scott Nichol wrote:
> > From: "Niclas Hedhman" &l
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 15:51, Herreman, Christophe wrote:
> Am I mistaken if I think that sending a java Vector, or Map or Hashmap over
> the SOAP wire will not be received well in a .Net client?
>
> In our system design, SOAP is used for interoperability and the .NET
> compatibility is important
Dear All,
Niclas Hedhman wrote :
> Parameter types are typically not a problem, since they are pretty much
under
> control and can be modified for the occassion. It is the content of
objects
> that really is annoying.
> Don't get me wrong. I like SOAP and I like the Apache SOAP implementatio
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 11:06, Scott Nichol wrote:
> From: "Niclas Hedhman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Inherent means to me; "I need to do nothing and it will work".
>
> 1. MapSerializer is registered by Apache SOAP as a serializer and
> deserializer for the Java type Map. You do not need to call ma
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 13:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I will conclude by totally agreeing with your last paragraph -- the scope
> of application of SOAP is not clear to some. If one likes transparency at a
> distributed OO programming level use EJB/CORBA.
There are "distributed concerns" that
raph -- the scope of
application of SOAP is not clear to some. If one likes transparency at a
distributed OO programming level use EJB/CORBA.
Soumen Sarkar.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Nichol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 9:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Con
m: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 11:39 PM
Subject: RE: Confusing issue on Maps
> The idea that "Apache SOAP forces you to be
> explicit about type" is a barrier in good system design.
> This breaks abstraction. I should be able to
y the
abstraction is suddenly breaking (and discussion
taking place on serilizers).
Soumen Sarkar.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Nichol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 8:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Confusing issue on Maps
- Original Message -
F
- Original Message -
From: "Niclas Hedhman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Confusing issue on Maps
> On Tuesday 02 July 2002 10:00, Scott Nichol wrote:
> > It is "inherent", bu
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 10:00, Scott Nichol wrote:
> It is "inherent", but only for an exact match of the type Map. When the
> Parameter instance is created, the type specified there is used to
> determine the serializer. Specifying the type using HashMap.class does not
> match the serializer fo
y, July 01, 2002 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Confusing issue on Maps
> On Tuesday 02 July 2002 09:45, Scott Nichol wrote:
> > To get a TreeMap or HashMap to serialize using MapSerializer, you can
> > either register the MapSerializer for those types, or specify the
parameter
> > a
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 09:45, Scott Nichol wrote:
> To get a TreeMap or HashMap to serialize using MapSerializer, you can
> either register the MapSerializer for those types, or specify the parameter
> as having a Java type of Map, e.g.
>
> TreeMap myMap;
> Vector params = new Vector();
>
ass, myMap, null));
Scott Nichol
- Original Message -
From: "Niclas Hedhman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: Confusing issue on Maps
> On Monday 01 July 2002 23:15, Scott Nichol wrote:
> > Nicl
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 09:22, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Monday 01 July 2002 23:15, Scott Nichol wrote:
> > Have you written and executed code that is giving you an error, or are
> > you just raising the issue based on reading code?
Also in HashtableSerializer it has a NICE comment at the top;
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 09:22, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> I'll regenerat the exception in a moment.
2002-07-01 17:26:28,742 ERROR [Module-Actions]
ts.TargetSpecificationWizardIterator
(TargetSpecificationWizardIterator.java:306) - Unable to create Target
Specification.
[SOAPException: faultCode=S
On Monday 01 July 2002 23:15, Scott Nichol wrote:
> Niclas,
>
> Have you written and executed code that is giving you an error, or are you
> just raising the issue based on reading code? Chris is quite correct about
> serialization, and that should work just fine. I am concerned about
> de-seria
client must create it from the Map that is
returned.
Scott Nichol
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Nichol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 11:15
Subject: Re: Confusing issue on Maps
> Niclas,
>
> Have you written a
an error executing code, please post it to this list or
> Bugzilla so we can have a look at it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Scott Nichol
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Chris Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, July 0
>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 07:43
Subject: RE: Confusing issue on Maps
> Not quite, if the type is a Map then a new
> Hashtable is created with the maps contents.
> This hashtable is then serialized.
> At least this is what happened in 2.2.
>
> -
: Confusing issue on Maps
I'm pretty new on SOAP, but now I have a need;
If I read
http://xml.apache.org/soap/releases.html#v2.2
it says;
"Added support for serializing/deserializing java.util.Maps."
If I download
http://xml.apache.org/dist/soap/version-2.3.1/soap-src-2.3.1.tar.gz
I'm pretty new on SOAP, but now I have a need;
If I read
http://xml.apache.org/soap/releases.html#v2.2
it says;
"Added support for serializing/deserializing java.util.Maps."
If I download
http://xml.apache.org/dist/soap/version-2.3.1/soap-src-2.3.1.tar.gz
and look at the file
soap-2_3_1/src/
29 matches
Mail list logo
