One important difference if I understand correctly is the tool handles SDOs whereas the runtime interface-wsdl-java2wsdl module only handles POJO types.
I think the runtime code basically relies on Axis2's Java->XSD mapping, which I don't think would fully honor JAXB annotations in the Java as it ideally would (though it looks like we do an extra step allowing us to recognize if a NS->pkg mapping other than the default was used to gen the Java). (With some configuration, I believe it's possible to use Axis2's J2W function in a way such that it would recognize these JAXB annotations, or another alternative I believe Simon Nash mentioned was to look into CXF.) I didn't follow all of the discussion about removing SDO from the Tuscany charter... but if SDO is no longer a special part of the Tuscany project then what would happen to the W2J/J2W tools built around SDO support? Scott On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > In tuscany-sca (1.1 above) , there are two modules related with > java2wsdl: > > 1.) modules\interface-wsdl-java2wsdl > > 2.) tools\java2wsdl > > The java2wsdl interface(1) provides a runtime interface to handle java > > object to wsdl object > > the java2wsdl tool (2) provides a command-line tool for converting java > > classes into wsdl files. > > the (1) use JAVA2WSDLBuilder (from Axis2 1.3 code) and > AxisService2WSDL11, > > AxisService2WSDL20 to generate WSDL > > the (2) use TuscanyJAVA2WSDLBuilder, TuscanyWSDLTypeGenerator ... to > > generate WSDL > > Why there are two different ways? Why not just use axis code only or > > tuscany > > code only for the two modules? > > Or there are already a plan to merge the code? so which one will be if > > there > > is a choice? > > > > Thanks > > - Alex > > > Hi Alex > > I don't think there is a good reason for the two approaches to WSDL > generation. It's probably just historical. I agree that it would be much > cleaner and more maintainable to have one set of code for doing this. I > saw > a comment on the list the other from someone getting different results > depending on which approach they used. This is obviously not a good thing. > Are you interested in getting involved in trying to fix this? > > Regards > > Simon >
