Hi,
>data binding framework to pass back information about the
> blobs to be sent as attachments, and to access the attachments when
> unmarshalling.
> blobs to be sent as attachments, and to access the attachments when
> unmarshalling.
IMHO this is doable with the way Axis2 currently handles MTOM. We use OMText to hold the binary data and act as the blob. There are several states to OMText, which can be set using "is Binary" and "isOptimised" attributes. When OMText contains binary data (either as base64 or pure binary) we set this to true. Then if those data are qualified to optimise then we can set "isOptimised" to true.
Data Binding framework can access the attachments when unmarshaling using these OMText objects. When there's an optimised binary attachment present, the infoset contains an <XOP:Include> element which we represent using OMText and it contains the reference to that attachment. Also it can be used to get the content of that attachment.
Also when sending binary things, data binding framework can use a programmatically created OMText. If it is to be optimised it can set the "isOptimized'' attribute.
IMO i feel MTOM is merging the transport and info set.. Even though no description of it is in the XSD or the WSDL, we can identify a Attachment by looking at the XML it self......
Also http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/AttachmentsProfile-1.0-2004-08-24.html defines some way to describe mime parts in WSDL. May be this can help us a bit for databinding.....
eg:
<input>
<mime:multipartRelated>
<mime:part>
<soapbind:body part="body" use="literal"/>
</mime:part>
<mime:part>
<mime:content part="ns:bar1"/>
</mime:part>
</mime:multipartRelated>
</input>
<mime:multipartRelated>
<mime:part>
<soapbind:body part="body" use="literal"/>
</mime:part>
<mime:part>
<mime:content part="ns:bar1"/>
</mime:part>
</mime:multipartRelated>
</input>
Thanks & Regards,
~Thilina
On 7/14/05, Ajith Ranabahu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Dennis,
The internals of the Databinding framework are as follows
1. We have something called extensions that run before the actual
code generator. For XMLBeans we have an extension that takes the
Schema element from the WSDL file and feeds it into the XB schema
parser. The logic of XB is completely inside the XB extension. After
the XB code generation, a type mapper is populated with the generated
types and passed on to the Axis2 code generator.
2. The generated classes include something called the
DataBindSupporter. DataBindSupporter has 'toOM' and 'FromOM' methods
which accept either a generated object and or the omelement
respectively and does the necessary conversion. The databinding logic
is completely inside the databinding supporters.
So as you can see the codegenerator is completely based on the
strategy of passing a schema element and getting the type map. You can
customize it with minimum effort. In particular have a look at the
XMLBeansExtension.java class in the
org.apache.axis2.wsdl.codegen.extension package
As for the MTOM support we have not yet thought about it seriously (I
mean how it affects code generation :)). Since MTOM is solely a
transport time thingy (no description of it in the XSD or the WSDL) we
were thinking of a user switch in the tool that will generate a
slightly different bunch of code which optimizes the output.
On 7/14/05, Dennis Sosnoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recently made some changes (going into JiBX RC1) to support using JiBX
> with SOAP. These are primarily designed around what I've found was
> necessary for JibxSoap, but I'm also planning to hook into Axis2 and the
> same requirements are likely to apply there. I know the 0.9 version has
> XmlBeans support in place - has anything been done yet to define a
> general-purpose API usable with other data binding frameworks? I'm
> interested both in runtime support and code generation (so that there's
> a way for Axis to pass off a schema subset to be handled by the data
> binding framework, along with any appropriate customization parameters
> for the data binding code generation, and get back some sort of map from
> types to classes).
>
> I'm also curious if anyone has considered how MTOM is going to work in
> combination with data binding. It seems like there'll have to be some
> way for the data binding framework to pass back information about the
> blobs to be sent as attachments, and to access the attachments when
> unmarshalling. In the case of JiBX I'm planning to add that in 1.1 with
> an internal API that allows JiBX to communicate with whatever runs the
> transport, then supply separate implementations of the transport
> interface for different usages (JibxSoap, Axis2, etc.). That aspect of
> MTOM has always seemed a bad smell to me, but since The Powers That Be
> (AKA the W3C) have decided it's the wave of the future I'll do my best
> to work with it.
>
> - Dennis
>
--
Ajith Ranabahu
