wsm -- revisiting the previous discussion

[Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>]

All--

  Now that 1.0 is out the door, it seems like it's time to put some
effort into updating WSM and getting to passing the TCK.  We discussed
this a while back in terms:

- changing the annotation processor to use Mirror types and to allow
for a Mirror and reflection abstraction
- architectural fixup that would more easily facilitate additional
features like JAX-RPC code generation
- removing the .ser files so that we don't require serialized Java
objects at runtime and switching this onto an XML file to describe the
relevant web service metadata

I've got a large amount of this work sitting in my sandbox and would
like to look at bringing it over to trunk/.  Any dissent to this work
starting?

  Certainly would welcome any help with this...

Eddie

Re: wsm -- revisiting the previous discussion

[Kenneth Tam <ke...@gmail.com>]

+1

I took a look at the work that Eddie's done in his sandbox, and from
an architectural perspective I concur with the approach it takes vs.
the current structure.

On 10/5/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No dissent from me (much assent in fact :) ).  This sounds great.  If
> there's anything I can do to help in the Mirror layer (where I'd be most
> useful here), let me know -- I'd be happy to pitch in.
>
> Rich
>
> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>
> >All--
> >
> >  Now that 1.0 is out the door, it seems like it's time to put some
> >effort into updating WSM and getting to passing the TCK.  We discussed
> >this a while back in terms:
> >
> >- changing the annotation processor to use Mirror types and to allow
> >for a Mirror and reflection abstraction
> >- architectural fixup that would more easily facilitate additional
> >features like JAX-RPC code generation
> >- removing the .ser files so that we don't require serialized Java
> >objects at runtime and switching this onto an XML file to describe the
> >relevant web service metadata
> >
> >I've got a large amount of this work sitting in my sandbox and would
> >like to look at bringing it over to trunk/.  Any dissent to this work
> >starting?
> >
> >  Certainly would welcome any help with this...
> >
> >Eddie
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: wsm -- revisiting the previous discussion

[Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com>]

No dissent from me (much assent in fact :) ).  This sounds great.  If
there's anything I can do to help in the Mirror layer (where I'd be most
useful here), let me know -- I'd be happy to pitch in.

Rich

Eddie O'Neil wrote:

>All--
>
>  Now that 1.0 is out the door, it seems like it's time to put some
>effort into updating WSM and getting to passing the TCK.  We discussed
>this a while back in terms:
>
>- changing the annotation processor to use Mirror types and to allow
>for a Mirror and reflection abstraction
>- architectural fixup that would more easily facilitate additional
>features like JAX-RPC code generation
>- removing the .ser files so that we don't require serialized Java
>objects at runtime and switching this onto an XML file to describe the
>relevant web service metadata
>
>I've got a large amount of this work sitting in my sandbox and would
>like to look at bringing it over to trunk/.  Any dissent to this work
>starting?
>
>  Certainly would welcome any help with this...
>
>Eddie
>
>  
>