On 8/10/05, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Robert! hi glen > > IMHO start-from-java is a better match for these cases. (though in the > > second, it would probably be replaced later by a generative solution.) > > so, maybe there'd be some reason why people might want to use a > > start-from-java binder even if it turns out to be better to directly > > port the old style stuff. opinions? > > 1) I don't particularly want to call it "old-style" as that feels wrong. > It'll simply be the Axis2 Data Binding Framework (unless there's a > better name?).
axis 2 call binding framework? BTW in the above paragraph i meant the actual old style (axis one) stuff not the stuff for axis 2. > And in fact, it'll need to take the old Axis1 stuff and > fix a lot of the inherent problems therein (in particular the way we > dealt with arrays of various kinds). +1 > 2) Our DBF is going to need to go from schema->Java, and also to go from > Java->schema. To generate WSDLs for DBF-bound services (whether RPC or > not), we'll need to introspect the Java and generate schemas. It > doesn't seem XStream does that. nope. i added (basic) schema support to betwixt without too much difficulty. since xstream is simpler and cleaner, it should be possible to added it. it is work that would need to be done, though. IMHO the substantive issue here is not the ability to generate schema but to generate schema good enough for decent interoperabilty. the minimum would have to be accurate schema for all the standards and reasonably expressive ones for more complex object graphs. > And even if it did we'd still need to > take the "data-specific" schemas for the RPC argument objects and wrap > them in the schema for the actual RPC method element... how tricky would this be? (i'm probably missing something...) > 3) I'm a little concerned there will be too much Axis-specific stuff > we'll need done in the DBF to successfully use a third-party library > without major changes. I'm certainly open to having the discussion though. i'm confident that it is possible to do the binding successfully (start-from-java has come a very long way since axis 1). so for me, the real question is whether how much effort this would be and whether the effort would be worthwhile. sounds like quite a bit of effort would be needed and that you're already well on the way already. it strikes me that porting the axis 1 data binding would retain the present weakness in expressive bindings for complex objects. i wonder how much demand there is likely to be in axis two for these kinds of bindings. - robert
