I don't think the Axis2 generates a valid wrapper-style WSDL in this case
(even though the WSDL itself is legal). It violates rule i & ii as it has
the input message fooMessage doesn't have any part.
The following is quoted from the JAX-WS 2.0 spec:
2.3.1.2 Wrapper Style
A WSDL operation qualifies for wrapper style mapping only if the following
criteria are met:
(i) The operation's input and output messages (if present) each contain only
a single part
(ii) The input message part refers to a global element declaration whose
localname is equal to the operation
name
(iii) The output message part refers to a global element declaration
(iv) The elements referred to by the input and output message parts
(henceforth referred to as wrapper
elements) are both complex types defined using the xsd:sequence compositor
(v) The wrapper elements only contain child elements, they must not contain
other structures such as
wildcards (element or attribute), xsd:choice, substitution groups (element
references are not permitted)
or attributes; furthermore, they must not be nillable.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Laws" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: Wrapper style test in WSDL processing?
On 8/31/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/31/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The operation.getInput() cannot be null to qualify for the wrapper
> style.
> There must be a part in the input message corresponding to the
> operation
> name:
>
> input
> --- message
> --- part (only one part)
> --- element (the element name should be the same as the
> operation name)
>
> The element should look like this:
>
> <element name="myMethod">
> <complexType>
> <sequence/> <!-- an empty sequence -->
> </complexType>
> </element>
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Laws" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "tuscany-dev" <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 10:34 AM
> Subject: Wrapper style test in WSDL processing?
>
>
> > There is a test to determine whether a WSDL operation follows the
> > "wrapped"
> > style in accordance with JAX-WS 2.0 spec. See
> > WSDLOperationIntrospectorImpl
> > (
> >
>
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/interface-wsdl/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/interfacedef/wsdl/impl/WSDLOperationIntrospectorImpl.java
> > )
> >
> > The code is currently
> >
> > public boolean isWrapperStyle() throws InvalidWSDLException {
> > if (wrapperStyle == null) {
> > wrapperStyle =
> > wrapper.getInputChildElements() != null && (
> > operation.getOutput() == null || wrapper
> > .getOutputChildElements() != null);
> > }
> > return wrapperStyle;
> > }
> >
> > Which doesn't seem to cater for the case where there may be no input
> > parameters. I'm diving into this code now to see if I can work out
> what it
> > means but if anyone has any insight I would appreciate it.
> >
> > Needless to say I have a scenario where I am trying to auto generate
> WSDL
> > for a method with the signature
> >
> > String myMethod()
> >
> > And it's complaining that it's not wrapped.
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> What you are saying sounds right to me, I.e. you can validly have no
parameters in your method but in this case it should build an empty
sequence
<element name="myMethod">
<complexType>
<sequence/> <!-- an empty sequence -->
</complexType>
</element>
And have this as the single input type. I'm deeper into the code now
looking for why this isn't the case.
Thanks Raymond
Simon
I've done a bit more investigation now. For the signature
String foo()
Axis2 Java2WSDL generates
<wsdl:types>
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
attributeFormDefault="qualified" elementFormDefault="qualified"
targetNamespace="http://test/xsd";>
<xs:element name="fooResponse">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="return" nillable="true"
type="xs:string" />
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>
</wsdl:types>
<wsdl:message name="fooMessage" />
<wsdl:message name="fooResponseMessage">
<wsdl:part name="part1" element="ns:fooResponse" />
</wsdl:message>
So in our code when it comes to testing for wrapped it returns false
because
this doesn't match the algorithm that was presented earlier in this
thread,
i.e. there is no part of the input message corresponding to the message
name. So when you try this in Tuscany is throws an exception saying that
the
operation is not wrapped.
It would be inconvenient for us to not support operations with no
parameters. As the wsdl generation process assumes that the target
operations will be generated as wrapped operations here's what I did..
1/ Changed the isWrapperStyle test (in WSDLOperationIntrospectorImpl) to
read.
public boolean isWrapperStyle() throws InvalidWSDLException {
if (wrapperStyle == null) {
wrapperStyle =
(operation.getInput().getMessage().getParts().values().size()
== 0 ||wrapper.getInputChildElements() != null) &&
(operation.getOutput() == null ||
wrapper.getOutputChildElements() != null);
}
return wrapperStyle;
}
I.e. I'm letting it pass if there are no input parts at all which I
believe
is valid according the the JAX-WS 2.0 spec
2/ Fixed the getWrapperInfo method to take account of the case where there
are no input params
if (in != null) {
for (XmlSchemaElement e : getInputChildElements()) {
inChildren.add(getElementInfo(e));
}
}
3/ Fixed the Axis2 binding to properly deal with the case when no
parameters
are present in Axis2ServiceInOutSyncMessageReceiver.
public void invokeBusinessLogic(MessageContext inMC, MessageContext
outMC) throws AxisFault {
try {
OMElement requestOM = inMC.getEnvelope
().getBody().getFirstElement();
Object[] args = null;
if (requestOM != null) {
args = new Object[] {requestOM};
}
The Axis2ServiceInMessageReceiver needs the same fix if we go with this.
This works with the forward message relying on the soap action to
indentify
the correct operation.
I haven't checked this in as the code seems to have been carefully crafted
to assume that there will always be an input parameter. Can someone
explain
why this is thought to be the case?
Regards
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
