The issue of Map vs HashMap seems plausible but the fact that the signature has java.lang.Object as a parameter still leaves unanswered the question - "what would JAXB use to deserialize something with no compatible XSD type" ?
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3191201/can-i-have-object-type-as-a-parameter-of-webmethod On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Al Eridani <[email protected]> wrote: > > Without a concrete class identified, how > > would the program decide which implementation of a list or map should be > > used? > > I don't think that is the problem. If it can do it for Map<String, String>, > why > can't it do it for Map<String, Object>? Why does one need to change from > Map<String, String> to HashMap<String, Object>? > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Aaron Titus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > List and Map are interfaces. Without a concrete class identified, how > > would the program decide which implementation of a list or map should be > > used? I know this can be handled with custom deserialization/ > > serialization but I thought I saw somewhere that there would be a way to > do > > it by declaring it via binding syntax? I can't seem to put my finger on > it > > at the moment ... > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Al Eridani <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Thank you, Mark, for your reply. > > > > > > > However with > > > > *java.lang.Object*- what XML Schema type could that correspond to in > > > > order to get > > > > serialized/deserialized to by JAXB? > > > > > > Well, I've found out that JAXB is able to do it, anyway. > > > > > > The error message reminded me that in the past there had been problems > > > with serialization of interfaces. So, in desperation, I changed the > > Map<,> > > > to HashMap<,> and afterwards the error message changed to > > > > > > class java.util.ArrayList nor any of its super class is known to this > > > context. > > > > > > So, I changed the List<> to ArrayList<> in the signature of the web > > service > > > method and now the web service works again. > > > > > > Of course, this "solution" is extremely ugly, so if somebody has some > > > suggestions on how to fix the problem without resorting to signatures > > with > > > concrete classes, please share your insights. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > >
