Chris,
I have just committed a change so that the return value of a service
method is serialized using its actual class rather than its declared
one, assuming the declared one is not a primitive type. This feature
will be available in future nightly builds, which are accessed at
http://cvs.apache.org/dist/soap/nightly/.
Scott Nichol
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Nichol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: passing interfaces instead of classes
> Without looking at the code, my guess would be that Apache SOAP
> serializes the return value based on the declared type of the
function,
> not the actual type returned. I will have to look at this later.
>
> Scott Nichol
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 5:26 PM
> Subject: Re: passing interfaces instead of classes
>
>
> > The problem I had is that my service actually looks like this:
> >
> > class SoapService {
> > public IData doSomething( IData data ) {...}
> > }
> >
> > When I tried to send a ComplexData or SimpleData concrete class
back,
> it
> > didn't work. Are you saying that was just a config or similar
problem?
> > Currently, I use a return type mapping when one of the service
methods
> > returns an array. Do I need to set up a return type mapping, as
shown
> in
> > the following code, or will the return be handled automatically and
I
> just
> > had something set wrong?
> >
> > SOAPMappingRegistry smr;
> > ...
> > smr.mapTypes(
> > Constants.NS_URI_SOAP_ENC,
> > new QName( uri, "return" ),
> > null,
> > ???, ??? );
> > ...
> > call.setSOAPMappingRegistry( smr );
> >
> >
> >
> > At 09:09 AM 12/2/02 -0500, Scott Nichol wrote:
> > >It is up to you when you define your mappings and/or write your
> > >serializers whether the classes implementing interfaces will be
> > >serialized with just information for the interface or for the
actual
> > >class. I personally prefer to have separate mappings for each
> concrete
> > >class. I don't like to have one serializer for an interface that
> > >internally actually knows how to serialize each class that
implements
> > >the interface. Big switch statements or multiple if/else branches
> don't
> > >feel right to me in the O-O world.
> > >
> > >Anyway, in your case this means I would write serializers (and
> > >deserializers) for SimpleData and ComplexData, then map each type
to
> the
> > >corresponding [de-]serializer. The server will correctly resolve
> these
> > >types as parameters to the doSomething method.
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Chris Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 7:48 PM
> > >Subject: passing interfaces instead of classes
> > >
> > >
> > >> Consider:
> > >>
> > >> interface IData {
> > >> int getValue();
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> class SimpleData implements IData {
> > >> int value;
> > >> public SimpleData( int v ) { value = v; }
> > >> public int getValue() { return value; }
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> class ComplexData implements IData {
> > >> float value, multiplier;
> > >> public SimpleData( float v, float m; ) {
> > >> value = v;
> > >> multiplier = m;
> > >> }
> > >> public int getValue() {
> > >> return (int) ( multiplier * value );
> > >> }
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> Then, consider a service that accepts an IData object:
> > >>
> > >> class SoapService {
> > >> public doSomething( IData data ) {...}
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> If I pass an IData object in a bean-like fashion, only the
'value'
> > >will be
> > >> sent in the XML, not the 'multiplier' if the IData object I'm
> sending
> > >is a
> > >> ComplexData object.
> > >>
> > >> If I change SoapService.doSomething to accept either a SimpleData
> or a
> > >> ComplexData, then the other class can't be sent.
> > >>
> > >> So, am I missing something, or is it difficult to represent
passed
> > >objects
> > >> as interfaces? Must they be represented as classes?
> > >>
> > >> One way around this would be to pass IData objects as the name in
> the
> > >XML,
> > >> and include the name of the implementing class in the XML as
well.
> An
> > >IData
> > >> de/serializer would then determine the implementing class, and
call
> a
> > >> de/serializer specific to that implementing class. Is there an
> > >automatic
> > >> way to do this?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
