+1
> -----Original Message----- > From: Benazech Cédric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:14 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Java2WSDL > > > >>and I just made a change for 8191 so that only the public > >>non-static fields are inspected. > > What do you think about using the same introspection > mechanisme for the > exception and for beans ? > > Cédric > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : R J Scheuerle Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Envoyé : vendredi 19 avril 2002 17:05 > À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : RE: Java2WSDL > > > Glen, > > Then change the factory stuff in WSDL2Java to use TypeDesc instead of > ClassRep. Don't just disable the code and leave it laying > around. Get rid > of *Rep classes, the Factory classes etc. > > I am not a strong proponent of lumping all models together. > A Java centric > model is different than a Java/xml combined model. I think > it is important > to keep the Java2WSDL implementation separate from the > runtime. I just > hope over time the combined model does not develop too many > warts. (I am > not saying -1 here...its just a concern.) > > While you are at it, change the ServiceDesc to populate the > FaultDesc by > inspecting the bean property methods. Right now only the fields are > inspected...and I just made a change for 8191 so that only the public > non-static fields are inspected. You also may think about moving the > FaultDesc stuff from ServiceDesc and putting it OperationDesc ? > > Rich Scheuerle > XML & Web Services Development > 512-838-5115 (IBM TL 678-5115) > > > > > Glen Daniels > > <gdaniels@macrome To: > "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > dia.com> cc: > > Subject: RE: Java2WSDL > > 04/19/2002 09:16 > > AM > > Please respond to > > axis-dev > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rich: > > First off, I'm sorry we haven't been communicating better > throughout this > process; I really didn't intend that this be a "win/lose" > situation in any > way.... I'll take the blame for some of this in that a > detailed design > document from me detailing what I wanted to do would have > gone a long way > towards smoothing these changes. > > > The purpose for the ClassRep and other *Rep classes in Java2WSDL was > > to provide a model to represent the Java information. A user of the > > emitter would then > > have the capability to override the ClassRep to populate the Java > > information in another > > way. > > Ok. > > > But now this pluggability has been completely removed. > > Java2WSDL now uses > > the *Desc model exclusively. So in the attempt to move > > forward, we have > > lost some > > more pluggability. Note that the *Rep model was useful for > > representing > > just > > the Java information. The *Desc model is a combined Java/XML > > model, so > > they > > are not the same thing. > > See next paragraph re: pluggability. Do you see another use for the > Java-only information that isn't connected tightly to its > XML-ness? My > goal in this is to have one model for everything we deal with > (services, > types) to avoid duplicating functionality across packages as > we were doing, > and to allow us to make changes for this stuff in a single place. > > > Glen, if you don't want the ClassRep stuff anymore, please remove it > > completely...and > > all the pluggable stuff that I added since they are no longer > > of any use. > > What I'd like to see is the *Desc model representing all the > functionality > we need, including the stuff that was in ClassRep. I don't > think we've > lost pluggability here: the "getTypeDescForClass()" method is the > pluggability point for the new stuff, which currently looks > for static data > and helper classes. In the future, I'd like to see it also > be able to read > an XML file, but there's no reason you couldn't do anything > else you wanted > there either, including supplying a custom TypeDesc-getter. > So whereas > before you would override ClassRep to provide your own version of > structured data, now you provide a TypeDesc with your own version of > structured data. Do you see problems with this approach? > > ClassRep can/should go, after we make sure that the evolved > *Desc system > really does everything that ClassRep and friends were doing. > > > You win. > > Hopefully everybody wins, which is why we work on this stuff > in the first > place.... > > --Glen > >
