Scott Kurz wrote:
Yang,
Do you think it would help for me to open a JIRA to support the named
types?
Thanks,
Scott
On 2/24/07, Yang ZHONG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Once binding is involved within WSDL2Java, one WSDL portType/message can
end
up with multiple Java classes respective to different bindings.
It mixes business logic and wire format :-(
Assuming involving binding is de facto, and only one binding each WSDL
portType/message,
maybe we can change JavaInterfaceEmitter.isWrapped to an algorithm such
as:
1. not wrapped if the style is not document or the use is not literal
2. not wrapped if the message has more than one parts
3. not wrapped if the part isn't element or its local name doesn't match
the
operation local name
4. not wrapped if the operation name isn't unique within the portType
Yes, I agree with Scott not to take isAnonymous() into account.
On 2/24/07, Scott Kurz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was wondering about the decision to have the WSDL2Java tool map the
> following WSDL pattern onto a non-wrapped Java interface
> when using doc-lit-wrapped WSDL:
>
> ...<types>
> ....
> <complexType name="getGreetings">
> <sequence>
> <element name="name" type="xsd:string"/>
> </sequence>
> </complexType>
>
> <element name="getGreetings" type="tns:getGreetings"/>
> ...
> </types>
>
> I noticed that wsimport seems to unwrap this and produce:
>
> getGreetings(String)
>
> whereas our WSDL2Java treats this as non-wrapped and generates:
>
> getGreetings(getGreetings)
>
> The key line of Tuscany code is:
>
>
org.apache.tuscany.tools.wsdl2java.generate.JavaInterfaceEmitter.isWrapped
> ()
> .... if (typeMappingEntry.isAnonymous()) {
> wrapped = true;
> } ....
>
>
> Are we interpreting differently Sec. 2.3.1.2 (iv) of the JAX-WS spec?,
> which
> says:
>
> (iv) The elements referred to by the input and output message parts
> (henceforth referred to as wrapper 27
> elements) are both complex types defined using the xsd:sequence
compositor
>
> Also, I'm realizing this maybe provides a (unintended?) way to
solve the
> issue I raised in:
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1019
> (That is, assuming the runtime databinding code also calculates
this as
> "non-wrapped"; if not there is potentially another problem).
>
> On the other hand I think it would be better to solve 1019 by
providing
an
> explicit choice.
>
> Also it seems there are a lot of WSDLs out there following the above
> "named
> complexType" pattern, (or whatever it's called).
>
> I'm wondering what Yang, Raymond, Sebastien and whoever else is
interested
> in the WSDL2Java tools thinks about this...
>
> Thanks,
> Scott Kurz
>
--
Yang ZHONG
Yes it will help. Thanks.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
