Need to allow generation of wrapped Java intf from doc-lit-wrap WSDL with named
complexType
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: TUSCANY-1142
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1142
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Java SCA Tools
Affects Versions: Java-M2
Reporter: Scott Kurz
Fix For: Java-SCA-M3, Java-SCA-integration
Our WSDL2Java tool maps the following WSDL pattern onto a non-wrapped Java
interface even 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;
} ....
As I claim in this JIRA, TUSCANY-1019, it would be nice to ALSO have the
ability to generate a non-wrapped Java interface from the given WSDL pattern,
but we should also allow for generation of a wrapped interface (the wrapped by
my guess should be the default).
Yang Zhong posted this reply in agreement to the Tuscany dev list.
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.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
