>btw: WSDL4J doesn't set these features and copes with the prefix being
>defined at the <definitions> scope.

I believe that's because WSDL4J doesn't validate documents. You should be able to disable these checks by disabling validation, if that's what you're interested in doing.

Lawrence




"Jeremy Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

06/07/2006 07:19 AM

Please respond to
[email protected]

To
[email protected]
cc
Subject
Re: Adding two methods to the Description Componenet





On 6/7/06, Chathura Herath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Take a look at the wsdl attached, its one of the samples in axis2. It
> has used a namespace inside the schema that is defined in the
> definition. Is this no longer possible in wsdl 2.0. If it is possible
> get namespace is a useful method for the description component because
> the types returned by the types component will be incomplete
> otherwise.
Hi. I had the same problem and opened a JIRA [1]. I gen'd a wsdl2.0
doc from a wsdl1.1 using the converter. The input doc was missing the
xmlns:xsd declaration in the <types><schema> element and the converter
didn't put one in the output. Woden complains (well actually it's
Xerces) with:

UndeclaredPrefix: Cannot resolve 'xsd:string' as a QName: the prefix
'xsd' is not declared.

because Woden sets both:

parser.setFeature(org.apache.xerces.impl.Constants.SAX_FEATURE_PREFIX
+ org.apache.xerces.impl.Constants.VALIDATION_FEATURE, true);
parser.setFeature(org.apache.xerces.impl.Constants.XERCES_FEATURE_PREFIX
+ org.apache.xerces.impl.Constants.SCHEMA_VALIDATION_FEATURE, true);

I'm not sure why this means the xmlns:xsd declaration is not visible
from the inlined schema though. John, do you have any insight?

btw: WSDL4J doesn't set these features and copes with the prefix being
defined at the <definitions> scope.

Jeremy
[1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WODEN-26

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Reply via email to