Ok. You have some choices then.

One option is to surface vanilla Restful Objects API, which will be JSON,
not XML, of course. If you do that then be careful to only expose view
models rather than entities so that you can continue to evolve your domain
without breaking your clients.

Another option is to use the ContentMappingService to allow clients to
request an XML dto when they hit an RO endpoint. That might be a little
unconventional for your clients but won't be much work your end. The
todoapp demonstrates this approach.

Or, you could just define a regular Wsdl and define a SOAP servlet
alongside those for Wicket and RO in your web.xml. The implementation can
use the headless access to the Isis runtime.

Hth,
Dan
On 30 Oct 2015 12:24 pm, "Erik de Hair" <e.deh...@pocos.nl> wrote:

>
> On 10/30/2015 12:44 PM, Dan Haywood wrote:
>
>> Is your application the web services client (will it be making calls to a
>> Web service exposed by your supplier) or is it the other way around (you
>> need to expose a web service for your suppliers to call)?
>>
> We have to expose a web service for our suppliers to call. Our suppliers
> have a web service to order and confige services that will be called by our
> application. The supplier's web service will send a message
> (asynchronously) to our webservice (to be created) when an order status
> changes. We have to update the order in our application after this message
> is received. This process is dictated by our supplier.
>
> So our application will be both web service and client in this process but
> the client part is no problem.
>
> Erik
>
>>
>> I'm guessing the former because you mentioned XML rather than JSON so
>> perhaps this is a SOAP service that already exists?
>>
>> Dan
>> On 30 Oct 2015 10:03 am, "Erik de Hair" <e.deh...@pocos.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We have to create a webservice to receive XML-messages from suppliers. As
>>> a result some entity in our Isis application has to be updated. Is there
>>> any way to realise this in a proper way in Isis?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Erik
>>>
>>>
>

Reply via email to