beanMapping or typeMapping?

[Mitch Gitman]

I have a Java interface with bean-compliant classes I want to make into a web service. Running Java2WSDL, I get a bunch of complexType elements for these classes. Fine.

Next, I want to produce the deploy.wsdd and then the server-config.wsdd. Running WSDL2Java generates a bunch of classes analogous to my original classes. I figure, "Heck, ignore these. Stick with my own."

But WSDL2Java also generates a deploy.wsdd with a typeMapping element for each of these auto-generated classes. Each typeMapping has serializer and deserializer attributes.

If I'm just using my own classes on the server, I wonder if I'm better off just using beanMapping elements sans (de)serializer attributes. Under what circumstances is beanMapping preferable to typeMapping?
=============================================
Here's the relevant passage from docs/reference.html:
<typeMapping qname="ns:localName" classname="classname" serializer="classname" deserializer="classname"/>
Each typeMapping maps an XML qualified name to/from a Java class, using a specified Serializer and Deserializer.

<beanMapping qname="ns:localName" classname="classname">
A simplified type mapping, which uses pre-defined serializers/deserializers to encode/decode JavaBeans. The class named by "classname" must follow the JavaBean standard pattern of get/set accessors.