Here is a link to a web site that will walk you through creating a very simple web service. However, all the critical pieces are created.
Hope this helps... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Galbreath, Mark A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 4:17 PM Subject: RE: Project from hell? > well....sheeeit! I am trying to find the EASIEST solution - screw writing > WSDLs and any other XML files! > > I tried the Sun tutorial, but it would a fanatic 12 weeks to go through that > one. > > I tried the Axis tutorial and it made no REAL WORLD sense at all. > > I tried the Oracle JDeveloper and JBuilder Webservices modules and they > suck. > > I DO NOT WANT TO WRITE XML - THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!! > > > What's the solution? I have pressure all over me to create Web services for > every f*cking application in the ..... department. What gives? It seems to > me that Web services has been way totally overhyped and it delivers nothing > of value. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 1:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Project from hell? > > > #1: > > You must be joking! There are more than 2000 DIFFERENT elements and complex > types. The problems tend to lie within the generated code and are not > obvious until you try to use that code...then you find that it doesn't work. > I wasted way too much time trying make changes to the Axis-generated code > before giving up. I concluded that Axis was an order of magnitude away from > where I needed it to be in terms of complex payloads (though that perception > might have been biased by the enormity of the SCS XML Schema). So I use Axis > for connectivity (it's great at this, of course) and insert XML documents > (that I generate) as document-literal content. > > Well, okay, I'll check it out over the weekend and file a bug report :-) > > > #2: > > No. I understand that nowadays some folks use Castor in cases like this. > Three years ago my customers needed something like a JAXB that supports the > whole of XML Schema and connected to databases. There wasn't anything then > so I wrote XchainJ. This product is now in version 2.3 and runs as a fully > integrated Eclipse Plugin. This isn't a commercial plug though because, > oddly enough, I find life is easier if I don't sell it! XchainJ is great for > really complex XML but, unfortunately, it has been my experience that people > who have a requirement for this are not the sort of people who have the > technical expertise to use it! They tend to be scientists not Java > programmers. I could ramble on at length about user perceptions, etc. but I > won't. When I work face-to-face with customers they really appreciate the > product and either use it themselves or pay me to use it. Typically, I can > turn around a project that would take a week using Castor, JAXB, etc. in two > or three hours with XchainJ (it does XML/Java/DBMS interoperability). The > whole process of dealing with potential customers in other countries and > over the Internet is more trouble than it's worth. > > Interestingly, I presented XchainJ to the technical director of a company > that sells Java software (on the basis that they could do the marketing, > etc.). The guy thought the product was great but found he was unable to > explain to his marketing folk what it did in terms that they could > understand! If they are not experts, people seem to get fogged beyond a > certain level of complexity. > > It's a crazy situation: we have XML Schema that scientists are running with > and producing very complex structures BUT they don't have the expertise to > implement solutions. Then there's the computer industry that, while > populated with developers who can work on complex projects and after great > effort can produce solutions, has mainstream tool vendors that are > completely out of touch with anything other than trivial XML! Some > commercial products have been written by programmers who were under the > impression that there will only ever be one XML Schema document that targets > a given namespace. They generate error like "I've encountered this namespace > before, what are you giving it to me again for!". Still other won't go > beyond a maximum of just one XML Schema document referenced from WSDL. GML > comprises 27 XML Schema documents that target the GML namespace (plus others > for xlink, etc.) (and GML is a basis schema that users are _intended_ to > incorporate as a component of other schemas). > > An NGO approached me a year ago with a project that they had only a month to > complete. It uses the CSDGM DTD (a.k.a. FGDC). They went to a big software > development company before they approached me and were told (i) something > that complex couldn't be done and (ii) if it could be done there's no way it > could be done within a month. Using XchainJ 1.1, I completed the entire > project in one day. Had I had XchainJ 2.3 then, it would have taken half a > day. > > In a similar vein, my customers currently need XML Schema support in > rich-clients. The sort of support that doesn't exist today. They are going > to get it in XchainJ 3.x. As I said earlier, there's a disconnect between > the complexity supported by the computer software industry and the > complexity required by scientists. While the Eclipse folks are working on > SWT-designer support, I'm working on 'XML Schema / SWT rich-client with > connections to controlled content web services plus authentication, > authorization, XML document management, etc.' support in a generic tool. An > order of magnitude disparity. > > Now, if only I was a marketeer instead of a programmer... :-) > > > Warmest regards, > > Jeff > > Cogent Logic Corporation > Toronto, Canada > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Davanum Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 12:18 PM > Subject: Re: Project from hell? > > > > A few questions: > > > > #1: Can you please open a bug report with a pointer to the schema that > fails? > > #2: Did you try using any JAXB implementation against the schema? > > > > thanks, > > dims > > > > On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:03:14 -0400, Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > On a similar note, there's a disconnect between the capabilities of > tools > > > created by the software industry and the requirements of the scientific > > > community. > > > > > > I have just completed a particular type of Open GIS Consortium (OGC) web > > > service called a Sensor Collection Service. The XML Schema referenced > from > > > the WSDL file comprises 54 XML Schema documents spanning 15 namespaces. > Not > > > only did the Axis bean code baulk at this but, when I had completed the > > > project, clients found that the .NET tools couldn't handle anything like > the > > > complexity of the SCS XML Schema. Consequently, I supplied 'client > > > software'. > > > > > > The originators of SOAP are conning the software world and no one seems > to > > > mind! > > > > > > If it's legitimate to distribute platform-independent data (XML) it must > be > > > legitimate to distribute the program logic that uses that data. If only > we > > > had a platform-independent way to deliver program logic! > > > > > > Forcing web service clients, as a matter of fiat, to write their own > program > > > logic is the antithesis of OOP: interfaces, inheritance, polymorphism > all > > > exits to promote reuse. Reuse is the Holy Grail of software development. > > > > > > It could be argued that each client has their own needs and so it's not > > > possible to write generic client-side code. Such an argument is false. > The > > > fact that XML Schemas are used to formalise the data transmitted within > SOAP > > > envelopes means that each web service is necessarily > application-specific > > > and, as such, is tractable to low-level client code. Such code exposes > data > > > (in the form of XML, if appropriate) that can then be used in whatever > way > > > the ultimate consumer-code requires. > > > > > > I recently wrote a web service for the Government of Canada that > provided > > > document-literal content in the form of Web Ontology Language (OWL). > > > Everyone was pleased with the outcome and loved the OWL implementation > BUT > > > the first thing they did was to nominate someone to write a generic > client > > > that dealt with the XML and provided the desired content through a Java > > > component that everyone could use/reuse. Hey, that's an idea...I wonder > if > > > we could supply Java client-side code with our web services. That way, > the > > > .NET folks and all other non-Java folks could continue to do what they > do > > > and the sane software developers can get back to the preferred paradigm > of > > > using portable code. > > > > > > XML and Java go together. Sun and all other interested parties seem to > be > > > blind to the fact that making portable client-side code an integrated > web > > > service deliverable would make those services far more viable. Not > everyone > > > wants to get into WSDL, etc. when they could simply use a bean! SOAP and > web > > > services are infrastructure. Folks who use my web services want turnkey > > > solutions. For them it's about access to scientific data. They want to > > > operate at a higher level of abstraction than SOAP! > > > > > > Warmest regards, > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > Cogent Logic Corporation > > > > > > Toronto, Canada > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Galbreath, Mark A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:22 AM > > > Subject: RE: Project from hell? > > > > > > > EXACTOMUDO! :-( > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Sherman, Dennis (END-CHI) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 9:12 AM > > > > > > > > Your task sounds to me suspiciously like someone at an executive level > > > > having heard about web services, and thinking they've found the silver > > > > bullet to all their problems. > > > > > > >
