----- 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" <[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 mapTypes to > > get this functionality. To me, that is "inherent". > > OO is not RPC. RPC worry about parameter types, OO need to worry about > CONTENT. > If I need to create and or specify a map type for every single Java class that > is required to be transferred, I'll soon be out of breath and give up on SOAP > as a generic transport protocol. > > But that is probably a matter of asking for too much... ;o) I'll get by for > now... Are you saying that you expect Apache SOAP to provide a more transparent layer over SOAP, which is, after all, pretty much just a fairly naive RPC mechanism? How transparent do you expect it to be? Even with RMI, I found I was overriding the default serialization for maybe 25% of my domain classes. The closest thing in Apache SOAP to transparent serialization is the BeanSerializer, but it is limited to JavaBean semantics. My experience is that SOAP requires more work than CORBA (with which I have only a little experience) and DCOM (with which I have more experience than I would have preferred ;-), although the Apache implementations minimize the invasiveness on the server. Have you worked with Axis at all? Its support for WSDL in addition to SOAP may help you with some of the serialization grunt work, as WSDL is, among other things, a description of the manner in which objects should be serialized. Finally, I have a question. What led you to use SOAP (rather than, e.g., RMI)? Scott Nichol -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
