Hi, To your question, "Why can't your code reference QueryProperty instead of queryProperty"? I say because it is not my code! This is the Axis server that fails to deserialize because it does not find a class to use to deserialize queryProperty. It only has a class named QueryProperty.
I agree with you that the switch to WSDL2Java shouldn't hurt. But maybe the real solution would be to have, as part of the generated code, a class that maps the types labels to the class name. A little like the type mapping done in the BindingStub. (Correct me if I am wrong) but I suspect that this is the code that allows a class named "QueryProperty" to be serialized as "queryProperty" the problem is that we do not have this mapping done on the server side. Sylvain. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Dunkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 4:59 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [WSDL2Java] No deserializer defined for array type http://[.. .]/: QueryProperty I don't understand your problem here. Why can't your code reference QueryProperty instead of queryProperty? I don't think you'll have much luck getting the JAX-RPC or JAXB (from which the XML mapping is taken) specs to change because they are Java specific. They are aimed at Java programmers. They do not in any way dictate how your WSDL looks. However I don't think it's unreasonable to add a switch to WSDL2Java to map XML identifiers to Java identifiers as closely as possible, disregarding the JAX-RPC spec. On the plus side, you would have a more direct mapping, which it seems several people want (including myself). On the minus side, you lose compatibility between JAX-RPC compliant SOAP implementations (are there others out there?). I could make the patch -- it should be pretty simple (I've already worked on that mapping). Comments from the developers? If all else fails, you can manually edit the files WSDL2Java creates to have things your way. Change the class names to the way you want them and edit the SoapBindingStub file to fix the registered type mappings. Dave -----Original Message----- From: St-Germain, Sylvain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 12:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSDL2Java] No deserializer defined for array type http://[.. .]/: QueryProperty It think that the uppercase for first letter rule is a cosmetic concerns that shouldn't be in the JAX-RPC spec. First it mainly applies to the Java language which at the time of designing a WSDL shouldn't be a concerns. However, I do agree with the rules that change the names that would bring up compilation issues. This is not the case with the first letter capitalization. Keeping the WSDL2Java the way it is now prevents my server to deserialize all message that were defined to used types with a lowercase first letter. And that *is* the real problem. I think the JAX-RPC is wrong with regards to the first letter rule for data types. I agree that this problem should be brought to the attention of the JAX-RPS spec owners before it is finalized. Sylvain. -----Original Message----- From: Gary Feldman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 1:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSDL2Java] No deserializer defined for array type http://[...]/: QueryProperty >From: Dave Dunkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >WSDL2Java complies to the JAX-RPC specification for mapping XML identifiers to Java identifiers. >That specifies that class should start with a capital letter. If I'm reading the spec correctly, this would appear to be an inconsistency in it. The appendix Mapping of XML Names, on pages 138-9, indicates that the first character should be converted to upper case, but it then states (erroneously?) that the mapping does not change an XML name that is already a legal Java class identifier. Or am I misreading this? Also, in section 4.2.3, it uses curiously inconsistent language to describe the mapping of the class names and the property names. It could be taken as saying that the class name mappings (unlike the property names) must be the same as the XML names, and should not use the mapping from the Appendix. I can't help but wonder if these problems should be brought to the attention of the spec owners before it is finalized. Personally, I think that the requirement that class names conform to Java naming conventions should be subordinate to the requirement that the class names be as consistent as possible with the names in the WSDL file, and that the mapping from WSDL to Java must not create collisions. Gary ==================================================================== Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. The Industry's Leading Provider of Cross-Platform and Porting Services ***************************** email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gary Feldman fax : 1-978-692-5401 Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. voice: 1-978-251-5431 11 School Street www : http://www.rtr.com North Chelmsford, MA 01863 USA This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you. This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you.
