You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to java-dev@axis.apache.org by Kenneth Tam <ke...@gmail.com> on 2006/03/15 00:45:12 UTC
[Axis2] Interface vs Binding vs Automatic code gen
Is org.apache.axis2.wsdl.codegen.CodeGenConfiguration.codeGenerationStyle
actually user configurable at this point? This comment in
CodeGenConfiguration.java suggests it is:
/* Code generation style means whether to use the binding or the
interface for code generation.
* the default is automatic where the code generator looks for the
binding and if the binding is
* absent, switches to the interface. The user however, can switch
to the interface or the binding
* modes explicitly by specifying this parameter
*/
but I can't quite figure out how to do it. There don't seem to be any
calls that actually set the member in question..
thanks,
k
Re: [Axis2] Interface vs Binding vs Automatic code gen
Posted by Ajith Ranabahu <aj...@gmail.com>.
Hi Kenneth,
This comment actually refers to how the code generator selects whether
to extract the binding information or not. Even when a binding is
present the code generator can ignore that and treat the WSDL as an
interface WSDL.
However the style flag currently cannot be set from outside (yet),
and I guess the comment that I've put there is not a true
representation of the code base. I'll add the parameter to the tool
interface and let you know.
On 3/15/06, Kenneth Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is org.apache.axis2.wsdl.codegen.CodeGenConfiguration.codeGenerationStyle
> actually user configurable at this point? This comment in
> CodeGenConfiguration.java suggests it is:
>
> /* Code generation style means whether to use the binding or the
> interface for code generation.
> * the default is automatic where the code generator looks for the
> binding and if the binding is
> * absent, switches to the interface. The user however, can switch
> to the interface or the binding
> * modes explicitly by specifying this parameter
> */
>
> but I can't quite figure out how to do it. There don't seem to be any
> calls that actually set the member in question..
>
> thanks,
> k
>
--
Ajith Ranabahu