Hi! I'm using Axis beta 1 (or is it beta 2?), and my "MyServiceLocator" has TWO constructors, one that uses the "private final" field, but also one that takes a parameter "java.net.URL portAddress", which solves the problem of changing URL to the SOAP web service.
Are you sure that there is no constructor that takes a parameter of type java.net.URL? If so, does anyone know if this extra constructor has been removed (by error I guess) in the latest Axis release(s)? Eirik Wahl > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:adrian.dimulescu@;free.fr] > Sent: 6. november 2002 11:14 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: "private final" attribute in generated stub java client > > > Hello, > > One little question concerning the Axis-generated Java stub client: > > The MyServiceLocator class (which actually contains an attribute like: > > private final java.lang.String kercash_address = > "http://172.20.140.221/axis/services/myservice";; > > declares it as "private final". > > Why is that a problem? Because one normally generates a set of client > stubs and packages them somehow, puts them in production etc. > What if the > address of the wsdl changes - which, by the way, kind of > happens all the time as > you deploy it on different test machines with different > locations of the WSDL > only to get it in production. > > So, what does one do? He does not regenerate everytime the > classes (on prod > machines often there aren't even compilers). So he seeks to > parameterize the > location of the wsdl, like, say: > > locator = new > MyServiceLocator("http://172.20.140.221/axis/services/myservice";) > > But, wait! There is no such constructor, as the address of the WSDL is > hardwired. No problem, says the Java programmer, I will get it my way: > > class ParameterizableMyServiceLocator extends MyServiceLocator { > ParameterizableMyServiceLocator (String wsdlLocation) { > myservice_address = wsdlLocation; > } > } > > No go: myservice_address is "final private", not simply > "protected"; this > makes sense as long as the idea is hardwiring it. But the > question is: would > it be possible to only "protect" it so that runtime > parameterization can be done? > > Thank you, > Adrian Petru Dimulescu >
