Hi Frank,
Yes, that would solve the problem. My only concern is that
-interfaceDataObject is proposed as an optional flag. If it isn't
specified, I think the generated interfaces should extend Serializable
nevertheless. All types of Data Transfer Objects, including SDO
DataObjects, should be Serializable.
- Ron
Frank Budinsky wrote:
Hi Ron,
Would the feature described in TUSCANY-254 be acceptable, or is that more
than you want.
Frank.
Ron Gavlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/23/2006 03:32:52 PM:
Hi Frank,
Now that you have returned from vacation, do you have any thoughts
on this issue? FYI, the session bean in question is a "remote" session
bean.
Thanks in advance,
- Ron
----- Original Message ----
From: Ron Gavlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: tuscany-user tuscany-user <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:44:08 PM
Subject: XSD2Java-generated interfaces are not Serializable
Greetings,
I have a session bean that includes XSD2Java-generated interfaces as
return types and method parameters. My appserver complains that
these interfaces are not Serializable. The XSD2Java-generated
implementation classes are indeed serializable. How should this
problem be solved...should XSD2Java make these interfaces extend
Serializable or do I need to specify the implementation classes as
return types and method parameters?
- Ron
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
