scabooz wrote:
Ok, that's a good start. What did you mean by ignored. I would have
expected that the WSDL was available in the logical in-memory object
model so that interceptors, binding impls, etc would be able to see what
was in the cT side file.
Dave
Dave,
That is exactly what I would NOT expect to see.
The component type from the implementation has the Java interface.
The <component.../> from the assembly may choose to use a <service.../> or <reference.../> element
which uses a WSDL for its interface definition (this is a configuration choice for the assembler),
but to me it makes no sense whatsoever to have a component type sidefile which has a WSDL interface.
To do so would be to lie about the implementation - the implementation is using the Java interface
and knows nothing about the WSDL at all, even if the WSDL is the correct mapping of the Java interface.
The interceptors etc can see what comes from the complete composition. Again, it is VITAL that they
know that the implementation is using a particular Java interface. For example, that interface may
be annotated with important information. The component type sidefile cannot and should not be used
to "wipe out" the information about the implementation.
Yours, Mike.
