Hi Deepal!! :
Many thanks for your time and help. I didn't know the default
constructor was required in a Java Bean, but I know it now and I won't
forget it :). Thanks again.
2007/7/19, Deepal Jayasinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi albert ,
For a Java bean it is required to have the default constructor, it is ok
to overload but do not remove the default constructor.
Thanks
Deepal
> Hi again !! :
>
> I finally do it work!!. I've find what was the problem reported in
> my last post, but i don't know if there is a bug in Axis 2 or if that
> is the expected behaviour, so I post again to explain it and with hope
> that my experience could be helpful for any newbie who has to face the
> same problem.
>
> I've a very simple test POJO web service returning a class named
> External :
>
> package org.testing.data;
>
> public class External {
>
> private String exMessage = null;
> private boolean error = false;
> private Internal internal = null;
>
> public External(String exMessage, boolean error, Internal internal) {
> this.exMessage = exMessage;
> this.error = error;
> this.internal = internal;
> }
>
> // getters and setters...
>
> }
>
> package org.testing.data;
>
> public class Internal {
>
> private String internal = null;
>
> public Internal(String internal) {
> this.internal = internal;
> }
>
> // getters and setters...
>
> }
>
>
> That way it doesn't work and my RPC client fails, returning an
> AxisFault caused by a java.lang.InstantiationException. But If I
> change those classes removing the constructors :
>
> package org.testing.data;
>
> public class External {
>
> private String exMessage;
> private boolean error;
> private Internal internal;
>
> // getters and setters
>
> }
>
> public class Internal {
>
> private String internal;
>
> // getters and setters...
>
> }
>
> then... it works FINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, and that is vey strange
> for me!!!!!!!. Is that the expected behaviour? can't I have my own
> constructor in the returned objects? (If I can't, I'll need many lines
> of code to do what I could have done with one line of code). does it
> exist any way to avoid that and have my own constructors?.
>
> Thanks in advance. Regards :
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
