On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Mauro Molinari <mauro.molin...@cardinis.com>wrote:
> Michail Prusakov ha scritto: > > I am sorry I've missed the discussion, but why have you made minOccurs=1 >> for null non-primitives? As far as I see it, if a value is null the wsdl >> should allow passing it as nill or not passing it at all because: >> 1) two ways of saying something is null means better interoperability as >> if a client does not support one way, it can use the other. I believe .NET >> 1.x clients are good example of this. >> 2) by omitting a value we can make the soap message smaller and thus >> increase performance. >> > > Hi Mike, > if you read the whole discussion and especially the related issue(*), > you'll see that by specifying minOccurs=0 for null non-primitives will cause > Axis2 to generate a WSDL from which .NET tools will have problems to > generate clients. These are .NET bugs, but if they can be avoided it's > better, otherwise .NET interoperability is severely affected. > There is a different between interoperability and the signature of the generated method. Here the problem is having an inconvenient method signature. > > IMHO the preferred way to solve this would have been to have a flag (false > by default) to use a ".NET friendly" generation algorithm, but Amila > preferred not to go this way. > I didn't agree on the parameter name. But we can add a parameter like "setMinOccursZero" to make this compatible with clients which does not support nillable true. thanks, Amila. > > (*) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-3300 > > > -- > Mauro Molinari > Software Designer & Developer > E-mail: mauro.molin...@cardinis.com > -- Amila Suriarachchi WSO2 Inc. blog: http://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/
