hi christop,
1. if you run java2wsdl on a java interface, it creates reusable WSDL
that does not implement the <service> section
2. you can control the interfaces that are exposed when you publish an
object.
3. if you want, you can bind to a remote service using the URL to a reusable
WSDL file + a concrete endpoint
if you're a java developer and you are the one who defines a web
service in the first place, i think it's far easier to create the java
class that implements the interface(s) you wish to expose, and then
dynamically generate the WSDL for use by other clients or implementations.
WSDL is not an easy or natural thing to work with.
if you're a java developer and you must implement a web service defined
by someone else, then run wsdl2java on the remote WSDL to generate the
client-side bindings and then use these bindings to interface with the
remote service. GLUE generates a client-side interface that represents
the remote service as well as Java data structures corresponding to the
complex types defined in the WSDL.
hope this helps,
cheers,
graham
-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph C. Cemper / privat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 2:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How to Wrap a Collection with IBM WSTK?
Graham,
AFAIK Glue goes the "Make a java-class visible" way.
That means, you give it a java-class and all the public methods are exposed
as a web service via
dynamically generated WSDL, proxy, etc..
Although I find this way absolutely cool and very convenient (had a WS
exposed with a preview version
only in a few minutes - wow ) I am not sure if that is what leads to a
reusable web service.
For the reason where I want to specify an abstract interface WSDL which is
"implemented" by other
specific Web Service Implementations I guess we could get problems with the
dynamic generation.
What do you think about the approach to do Web Service interface design
top-down, meaning from the
WSDL down to the code?
Kind regards,
Christoph C. Cemper
----- Original Message -----
From: "graham glass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Christoph C. Cemper / privat"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 8:36 AM
Subject: RE: How to Wrap a Collection with IBM WSTK?
> try GLUE from http://www.themindelectric.com
> it might have what you need, and is free for most commercial uses.
>
> cheers,
> graham
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christoph C. Cemper / privat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:24 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How to Wrap a Collection with IBM WSTK?
>
>
> IBM WSTK 2.3 has no support for complex types which will need here.
>
> We were troubling round with a few tools for "Web Service Generation" and
> finally
> came to the conclusion, that
>
> - interoperability
> - non-proprietarity
> - feature-support
>
> make a manual implementation of WSDL + proxy + + necessary...
>
> AFAIK there is no "solution", just a bunch of tools that help you here and
> there with a Quote-Webservice
> or a Helloworld-Web Service, but as soon as you tend to implement real
> applications you reach the
> limit of those "point-and-click"-programming tools...
>
> But I don't know about future versions of WSTK - according to an IBM guy
> (Tony) the new WSTK should
> support much more things.
>
> This information/evaluation is about 4 weeks old and might be superseded
by
> better/newer products - any help/infos appreciated (non-commercial)
>
>
> hope this helps,
> christoph c. cemper
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:16 PM
> Subject: How to Wrap a Collection with IBM WSTK?
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > when I try to create a web service from a Java class, I cannot solve
> > the following problem:
> > In a method with a self-defined object as return type, the object
contains
> > a java.util.Vector. And whenever a vector is used or an object
> > containing a vector, the WSTK serviceWizard wants to wrap an
> > additional Object[] array, which leads to an error.
> > Does anyone know if other collection types work better, or is there
> > another way to get along with this?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > Michael Rohde
> >
> >
>
>
