Um, NONE of these require us to remove WOM and do what you are suggesting.
Sanjiva. On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 13:38 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Sanjiva, > > We are facing the following situation: > > Data points: > - AFAIK, Woden will not do WSDL11 anytime soon > - For a java class with no wsdl, we need a place to store > targetnamespace > (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&m=113678047126352&w=2) > - For a java class with no wsdl, we need a place to specify the schema > namespace (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&m=113678152504708&w=2) > - If people codegen stuff and don't drop wsdl's into META-INF "?wsdl" > is pretty much useless > - Even if they drop wsdl's that's problematic with imports > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&m=113686890610717&w=2 > - You mentioned that we could flatten the wsdl's > (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&m=113687004010150&w=2), how > is this different from keeping a wom? > - Original wsdl, annotations, services.xml all affect the service that > the user deploys, we need a model where this information is aggregated > (see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&m=113686675028357&w=2) > > Are these data points enough to make us revisit a decision? > > thanks, > dims > > On 1/10/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We went down the WOM path for a reason. Until we get Woden I am most > > definitely -1 to removing it. Maybe we don't use it to its fullest > > extent but what are we achieving by doing this major surgery at this > > stage? > > > > This was discussed at the hackathon at ApacheCon and this path was > > decided. We made a decision and I see no reason to re-visit that all of > > a sudden. > > > > I have no problem with saying WSDL 2.0 is a non-goal for 1.0 .. that has > > been the case from day 1 because we were targetting (and still are) to > > get to 1.0 before WSDL 2.0 is done. > > > > Sanjiva. > > > > On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 09:31 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > > Ajith, > > > > > > Am trying to start a discussion. Personally, I really don't want to > > > get rid of it. I want it to be the center of what we do with > > > AxisService. Am trying to re-state what has been said on multiple > > > threads, for example. > > > > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&m=113687038805762&w=2 > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&m=113687086414152&w=2 > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&m=113688521503643&w=2 > > > > > > I want us to make a conscious decision and stick to it!! > > > > > > thanks, > > > dims > > > > > > On 1/10/06, Ajith Ranabahu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ahum... > > > > Are you serious Dims ? I mean about getting rid of WOM ? For me it > > > > seems > > > > getting rid of WOM is not that easy (codegenerator completely depends > > > > on it) > > > > and the WSDL 2.0 is taking shape and will be finalized soon (which > > > > means we > > > > should be supporting it anyway) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/10/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Team, > > > > > > > > > > Let's get rid of of WOM and declare that we will use only wsdl4j which > > > > > implies hence WSDL 2.0 is a non-goal for Axis2 1.0. IF we get a > > > > > release from woden that includes parsing WSDL1.1 THEN we will > > > > > reconsider. > > > > > > > > > > sounds like a plan? > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > dims > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Ajith Ranabahu > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ > > > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
