Hi Simon Thanks for your reply, I would like to help to improve it. I think maybe we can merge the tools\java2wsdl code, and let them both follow the axis's approache. On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 8:26 PM, 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 > -- http://jroller.com/page/dindin
