[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a question about WSDL and binding. Are the various WSDL tools to generate code going to have problems if there are other bindings available besides soap in the WSDL doc?hi David,
that will depend on tools used - theoretically they should ignore unknown bindings (unless wsdl:required) but some are known to less tolerant.
in principle for WSIF to work you should be just fine with having XML schema types from WSDL mapped into generated Java objects (using some binding API that is compatible with WSIF) and everything else could be done using WSIF dynamic invocation interface. however in lot of cases it is convenient to generate stubs and in such case you need to use portType/operation/message to construct both actual stub and Java interface (that is where such WSDL tool may be very useful). however actual protocol bindings and service location (information contained in WSDL binding and service elements) are interpreted during runtime and are not needed during code generation so information about bindings can be removed from WSDL doc when WSDL tool is used to generate code (we have example of such situation in our samples).
Is the (remote) WSDL doc retrieved each time a service is invoked?it can be but it is up to you to decide where is located WSDL document that should be used - it can be a local copy too.
thanks,
alek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:--
> Is WSIF a client-side only technology? In other words, my server-side
> SOAP, EJB, JCA, code doesn't change any to be accessible by the client
> does it? There is no server side component specific to WSIF is there?
hi David,
that is right. WSIF is client-side library.
> Is WSIF a java-only product at this point? Do any implementations
> exist yet, that are not java?
currently WSIF is implemented only in Java and i am not aware about
WSIF-like library for other languages.
thanks,
alek
--
"Mr. Pauli, we in the audience are all agreed that your theory is crazy.
What divides us is whether it is crazy enough to be true." Niels H. D. Bohr
"Mr. Pauli, we in the audience are all agreed that your theory is crazy. What divides us is whether it is crazy enough to be true." Niels H. D. Bohr
