Hi Raymond,
How about defining databidings separately instead of embedded them as extensions to the interface.wsdl. Right now I take the case of a WSDL to express what I mean to say. In a WSDL... - the message are defined - then we have wsdl:porttype element and its children defined around these messages - we then have wsdl:binding that defines bindings around this portype - then the service definitions around the bindings - why not have something like <wsdl:data> that defines the databiding. If this defn. is there then it is taken up and used otherwise the defaults apply. Is there something similar that we can do for what we define in SCDLs. ? This way the interfaces definitions and the databidings are kept apart. If there is a databiding defn. it will have info about which interface (by name) it should be applied to. Makes sense? Thanks - Venkat On 8/29/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also to answer Jeremy's question raise before: "I believe Celtix > uses WSDL extensions for this i.e. annotations added > to the WSDL or possibly the underlying XMLSchema to indicate the > data binding to use. ". This is not true. Celtix1.0 only supports > jaxb, Hi Jervis, I thought Celtix supported multiple databindings through NodeReader/ NodeWriter? Is that wrong? Jim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
