I did something similar but I actually took the objects
generated by wsdl2java and copied my business logic to
them (instead of copying the annotations to my existing code).

I noticed the annotations and class names are different
between your 2 snippets.  In my case the package, class,
and annotations were exactly the same between the generated
and customized classes.  Then I added a few fields and
methods and added some code in other methods.  It works fine
and I use the same classes on both server and client.

- Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kugaprakash Visagamani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 12:31 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Using existing Java objects as against the WSDL generated
> java objects!
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> Greatly appreciate your response and Thank you for the suggestion.
> 
> 
> 
> I have actually copied the JAXB annotations from the WSDL generated
> java
> classes to my Beans object. Can you help me with little more
> information
> as to how can I customize my converted bean (jaxb) to map to the
> schema?
> 
> 
> 
> Sample of my Converted Jaxb object:
> 
> 
> 
> Package stu.xyz
> 
> @ @XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.FIELD)
> 
> @XmlType(name = "Child", propOrder = {
> 
>     "address"})
> 
> Public class Child extends Parent{
> 
>       @XmlElement(name = "mac_address")
> 
>       Private String address;
> 
>       .....
> 
> }
> 
> 
> 
> But the WSDL generated object looks like:
> 
> 
> 
> Package abc.def
> 
> @ @XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.FIELD)
> 
> @XmlType(name = "TempChild", propOrder = {
> 
>     "address"})
> 
> Public class TempChild extends TempParent{
> 
>       @XmlElement(name = "mac_address")
> 
>       Private String address;
> 
>       .....
> 
> }
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please help me as to how and where do I map in the WSDL to
> unmarshall to my jaxb converted "Child".
> 
> Note that the package structure is also different.
> 
> Please help me with any suggestions.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Kuga
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 7:46 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Using existing Java objects as against the WSDL generated
> java objects!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without knowing complete details of what the "differences" are, this
> 
> is a very hard question to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> If your beans "look" like the jaxb beans, but with additional business
> 
> logic methods added, it's fairly straight forward.   You can pretty
> 
> much copy the JAXB annotations over to your beans and just use your
> 
> beans.   With jaxb, you can even add extra methods that are called
> 
> after the data is read to finish any extra wiring you need done.
> 
> 
> 
> If you get it so your objects are usable with JAXB, you can use jaxb
> 
> customizations at code generation time to tell it to map the schema
> 
> types into your objects instead of code generating new objects.    You
> 
> can actually do this piece meal.   Map the objects you have working
> 
> and code generate the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 2:21 AM, Kuga wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >
> 
> > Hi,
> 
> > We have several existing Java POJO classes in client side.
> 
> > Now we are planning to use the WSDL, as such we have defined the
WSDL
> 
> > definition, based on server side schema, and then generated Java
> 
> > objects. I
> 
> > would not be able to just use these generated classes in the client
> 
> > side
> 
> > instead of my POJO, as some of the POJO has some business logic also
> 
> > involved in them.
> 
> >
> 
> > As such can I use my POJO instead of the WSDL generated Java
> 
> > objects. Where
> 
> > do we need to add these mappings in the WSDL file.
> 
> >
> 
> > Any help is appreciated.
> 
> > Thanks & Regards
> 
> > Kuga
> 
> > --
> 
> > View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Using-existing-Java-objects-as-against-the-WSDL-
> ge
> nerated-java-objects%21-tp18127291p18127291.html
> 
> > Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> Daniel Kulp
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to