via package name ?

[Dominik Gallus <Ga...@fzi.de>]

Hello all,

I'm currently facing the problem of having to serialize not-predefined
Java Objects(some ints, an Object, and one Object[]) 
which are nested in a 'MethodInvocation' Bean 
(happily (de)serializable w/ the Bean(De)Serializer).
that I send to the server.

>From the current point of view, I can't clearly foresee the
types of the nested objects being sent. Also, a speculative approach
involving 
<beanMapping> the various ObjectTypes (Exceptions, ...)
seems a little tedious.

If possible, <beanMapping> the contents of a whole package might be 
 a more expedient approach.
 So, a question for kicks :-) would it be possible to map the Java package 
'mitest' to a generic QName 'ABean', in order to have its classes serialized

automatically ? 

   --- Cheers, Daomeng

Re: via package name ?

[Guillaume Sauthier <Gu...@Objectweb.org>]

Hello
At this time, it's not possible to do what you want.
a beanMapping tag explicitly map a java class to an xml qname. You
cannot map a java package (as a list of java class) to only 1 qname, you
must have a list of qname. And so, a list of beanMapping seams the only
solution.

Regards
Guillaume

Dominik Gallus wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I'm currently facing the problem of having to serialize not-predefined
> Java Objects(some ints, an Object, and one Object[])
> which are nested in a 'MethodInvocation' Bean
> (happily (de)serializable w/ the Bean(De)Serializer).
> that I send to the server.
> 
> >From the current point of view, I can't clearly foresee the
> types of the nested objects being sent. Also, a speculative approach
> involving
> <beanMapping> the various ObjectTypes (Exceptions, ...)
> seems a little tedious.
> 
> If possible, <beanMapping> the contents of a whole package might be
>  a more expedient approach.
>  So, a question for kicks :-) would it be possible to map the Java package
> 'mitest' to a generic QName 'ABean', in order to have its classes serialized
> 
> automatically ?
> 
>    --- Cheers, Daomeng