Re: JSR-181 JWS file extensions: .jws vs .java

[Eddie O'Neil]

 Agreed.  NetUI has heard comments from customers that would like 
support for the ".java" extension when building Page Flows.  The 
@Jpf.Controller annotation is then used to identify a .java file as a 
Page Flow.  Seems like we should do the same with web services.

 One of the benefits of this is that it allows Page Flows (and other 
files such as web services / controls / etc) to be built using any Java 
editor. 

Eddie

Kyle Marvin wrote:
For Beehive controls, both .java and the various control extensions (.jcs/.jcx) 
are all supported.  In reality, it is an annotation on the primary 
class/interface (@ControlImplementation / @ControlExtension) inside the source 
file that is actually used to identify the component type.   @WebService could 
certainly behave in a similar way.
-- Kyle
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Zachary Smith 
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:30 PM
To: Beehive Developers; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: RE: JSR-181 JWS file extensions: .jws vs .java

I agree with dims.  I think there is value in supporting both and it
should not add much overhead.
-----Original Message-----
From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 6:29 PM
To: Beehive Developers
Cc: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: JSR-181 JWS file extensions: .jws vs .java

let's support both :)
-- dims
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:22:58 -0700, Michael Merz 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
   

Hi all,
Axis 1.x expects Java Web Service files to have a ".jws" extension.
     

This
   

certainly makes sense, since there Axis can't differentiate between
     

Java
   

Web Service files and regular Java files just by looking at their
contents.
JSR-181, however, makes additional information available in form of
metadata (annotations). With this additional information it is now
possible to tell Java Web Service source files apart from 
     

regular Java
   

source files -- just by looking at the files' contents; thus, the
     

".jws"
   

extension is not necessary anymore.
Since Java Web Service source files are Java files, I suggest to get
     

rid
   

of the ".jws" extension altogether and to support the 
     

standard ".java"
   

extension for Java Web Service files.
Comments? Opinions?
Cheers,
-michael
     

--
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/