On Jan 3, 2008 7:59 PM, Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Amila, > > SOAP encoding is much more likely to be used in a code-first scenario, > but you must make sure that it also works in a WSDL-first scenario. > > Regarding one of your questions, you would never see an element > defined as follows: > > <s:element name="TestSoapElement2"> > > <s:complexType> > > <s:sequence> > > <s:element name="param1" type="s:string"/> > > <s:element name="param2" type="soapenc:Array"/> > > </s:sequence> > > </s:complexType> > > </s:element> >
In the soap encoding schema Array is defined as a complex type. Then why it is wrong to use it as a type? Anyway in the article you given it has mentioned like this. The WSDL specification requires that arrays be based on the SOAP 1.1encoding schema. It also requires that arrays use the name ArrayOfXXX, where XXX is the type of item in the array. Does WSDL specification say something like this? For me it is an customized type they have come up with to solve the problem we have. They have define some convention to determine the array type. But I think we need to come up with some generalized approach to support any schema. Like I have given above. I'll have a look at the wsdls generated by Axis 1.x with soap encoding and the corresponding java classes generated by the wsdl2java tool. [1] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/ Amila. > > > First off, you would define a named complexType rather than an > element. And second, you never define an element simply as > soapenc:Array. The ComplexType would look something like this: > > <s:complexType name="TestSoapType2"> > <s:sequence> > <s:element name="param1" type="soapenc:string"/> > <s:element name="param2" type="tns:ArrayofString"/> > </s:sequence> > </s:complexType> > > <complexType name="ArrayOfString"> > <complexContent> > <restriction base="soapenc:Array"> > <attribute ref="soapenc:arrayType" > wsdl:arrayType="string[]"/> > </restriction> > </complexContent> > </complexType> > > Or even more likely, you wouldn't define the "TestSoapType2" type -- > you would simply reference the child types in the WSDL message > description: > > <w:message name="TestInput"> > <w:part name="param1" type="soapenc:string"/> > <w:part name="param2" type="tns:ArrayofString"/> > </w:message> > > You might find this article helpful: > http://www.developer.com/services/article.php/10928_1602051_3 > > You also might spend a little time playing with Axis generating some > RPC/encoded services to get a better sense of how the environment > works. > > Anne > > On Jan 3, 2008 1:51 AM, Amila Suriarachchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > hi tom, > > > > I went through the Axis user guide[1] and as I understood Axis 1.x has > used > > soap encoding in the > > code first approach to support Arrays. I think this is where both you > and > > glen has misunderstood. > > > > in that case if I have a class like this > > > > public class Test { > > private int[] testArray; > > public void setTestArray(int[] param){ > > testArray = param; > > } > > > > public int[] getTestArray(){ > > return testArray; > > } > > > > } > > > > in this case as Axis 1.x has done users must be given the chance to deal > > with the standard types and it is > > almost useless to ask to deal with a new type. Further as I guess it > uses > > org.apache.axis.providers.java.RPCProvider as in Axis2 > RPCMessageReceiver. > > BTW one question. Why Axis 1.x use soap encoding for this? why it simply > > generate something > > like this > > <element name="testArray" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > > it is always better to use POX rather than encoding types isn't it? > > > > So we won't be able to use the Axis 1.x code for this. > > > > But In the contract first approach people always have to deal with the > > generated classes. So I believe in this > > case I don't think it is a problem. Here the main idea is to access a > > service already deployed with soap:encoding. > > > > So it would only be used at client side. > > > > [1] > > > http://ws.apache.org/axis/java/user-guide.html#ConsumingWebServicesWithAxis > > > > thanks, > > Amila. > > > > > > > > On Jan 3, 2008 10:53 AM, Amila Suriarachchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > wrote: > > > hi tom, > > > thanks you your reply. if you have already working with axis 1.x could > you > > please help on answering these > > > questions? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 3, 2008 4:06 AM, Tom Jordahl < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 on Glen's -1 of using a whole new set of types to support SOAP > > > > encoding. A String must map to a soapenc:string and a Array[] must > map > > > > to a SOAP encoded array. > > > > > > > > > In axis 1.x is it use in code first or contract first (i.e. wsdl2java) > > approach? Here what I am trying to do is to > > > use it with the wsdl2java tool. i.e with the contract first approach. > > > > > > So the main question is what is the generated method signature for > > > > > > <s:element name="TestSoapElement2"> > > > > <s:complexType> > > > > <s:sequence> > > > > <s:element name="param1" type="s:string"/> > > > > <s:element name="param2" type="soapenc:Array"/> > > > > </s:sequence> > > > > </s:complexType> > > > > </s:element> > > > > > > this type of element. what is the type of param2 in Axis 1.x? Here in > code > > generation > > > time I do not know the type of the array. That is why I set it as a > new > > type letting users to define it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also argue for "full" multiref support, as servers will be > > > > sending this back to Axis2 clients, right? > > > > > > > > > I agree. I'll add this feature as I have describe earlier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amila, please feel free to use the Axis 1.x code base as a reference > for > > > > how to do any of this. Please also feel free to NOT to duplicate > the > > > > Array serialization/deserialization bugs. :-) > > > > > > > > > For the moment in Axis 2 ADB is also in a very stable state. so using > > already existing ADB logic > > > won't give any serializing de serializing issues. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Amila. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Tom Jordahl > > > > Axis 1.x guy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Glen Daniels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > > > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 1:49 AM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [Axis2] Soap Encoding support with ADB > > > > > > > > Hey Amila: > > > > > > > > > won't need them. But for SOAP 1.1, the situation is > different. > > > > The > > > > > encoding spec says you MUST encode all complex object types as > > > > top-level > > > > > members of the serialization. Therefore ALL conforming SOAP > 1.1 > > > > > encoding implementations will be putting out stuff that looks > like > > > > this: > > > > > > > > > > <soap:body> > > > > > <operation> > > > > > <arg1 href="#obj1"/> > > > > > </operation> > > > > > <multiref id="obj1"> > > > > > <name>the real argument</name> > > > > > <color>blue</color> > > > > > </multiref> > > > > > </soap:body> > > > > > > > > > > is this means it is allowed to have more than one xml element in > the > > > > > soap:body ? > > > > > > > > Yes. But - I was incorrect about the MUST above! My hands were > typing > > > > a little ahead of my brain there. :) Multirefs are not in fact > > > > *required* by SOAP 1.1 section 5, but some implementations (Axis 1.X > > > > included) will by default serialize all complex objects as multirefs > > > > since it speeds writing (if you don't do it that way you have to > walk > > > > the entire data graph to see what objects are referred to multiple > times > > > > > > > > before serializing). > > > > > > > > > I have to think about bit. We can resolve the problem with parsing > as > > > > I > > > > > have mentioned earlier but can not think about a way to serialize > with > > > > > > > > > multirefs. > > > > > > > > Again, my bad - we're not forced to do so, so it's ok for us not to, > as > > > > long as we accept that we're not going to be able to do real graphs. > If > > > > > > > > no one wants this particular functionality, I'm fine with punting on > it. > > > > > > > > Your idea about parsing the XML to remove the hrefs and generate a > > > > larger "virtual" expanded document on the reading side should work > fine, > > > > > > > > although it will potentially cause repeated data if a multiref is > used > > > > many times. Probably not a big deal. I'll respond to the rest of > your > > > > other note in another message. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Glen > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Amila Suriarachchi, > > > WSO2 Inc. > > > > > > > > -- > > Amila Suriarachchi, > > WSO2 Inc. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Amila Suriarachchi, WSO2 Inc.
