My comments between below...
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Jordahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 05/07/2002 10:57:46 AM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:RE: Revamped WSDL2Java framework
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Revamped WSDL2Java framework
Do folks think this is a reasonable revamp? I haven't heard from anyone
except dims, and dims (except for a couple bugs he found) is OK with it.
My next question is packaging. I packaged it like I did to avoid
interferin
Title: RE: Revamped WSDL2Java framework
Are you saying that while WSDL2Java itself is still being debugged/improved you want it to generate new files every time? I can understand that argument, but I think that once the tool stabilizes, it should only generate new files if the WSDL has
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 05/06/2002 06:51:17 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: Revamped WSDL2Java framework
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Butek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May
. WSDL2Java is
the backend that generates AXIS bindings and therefore belongs with AXIS.
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 05/06/2002 07:02:44 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: Re
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: Revamped WSDL2Java framework
> Do folks think this is a reasonable revamp? I haven't heard from anyone
> except dims, and dims (except for a couple bugs he found) is OK with it.
> My next question is packaging. I
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Butek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 12:40
Subject: Re: Revamped WSDL2Java framework
> Do folks think this is a reasonable revamp? I haven't heard from anyone
> except dims, a
Do folks think this is a reasonable revamp? I haven't heard from anyone
except dims, and dims (except for a couple bugs he found) is OK with it.
My next question is packaging. I packaged it like I did to avoid
interfering with the existing emitter code. But if I replace the existing
code with t
