Re : Lightweight Skeletons

[Cédric Chabanois <CC...@cognicase.fr>]

I think this is good news but I don't know if I have well understood the
consequences.

Say I have a web service (2 classes : the interface and the impl)

1) If I compile it with -g, parameter names are available so the skeleton is
not necessary. Am I right ?
The ?wsdl will have correct parameters (not in0, inout0 ...) 

2) If I don't compile it with -g, parameter names are not available.
Skeleton can be useful in this case because I can implement getParameterName
and init functions that will tell the parameter names.

Personnaly, I have made a skeleton (and added it in the wsdd file) but I
still don't have correct parameter names in the generated wsdl (?wsdl).

Why ?


Cédric


>Changed WSDL2Java and the runtime (RPCProvider, JavaUtils.convert) to use
"lightweight" skeletons. 
>The skeletons now have the same method signatures as the impl, stub, and
portType. 
>The skeletons delegate directly to the impl, the runtime automatically
builds the proper Holder objects as necessary. 
>The only purpose for the skeletons is to provide a new method
getParameterName(opName, i) which is used by RPCProvider to associate names
with the output values. 
>So if this is not necessary for your service, no skeleton is needed. This
is a big step towards the complete removal of skeletons. 
>For example, if the server has wsdl or other meta data, the runtime *could*
automatically use the meta data to get the element names for the output
values. 
>For the time being, these new lightweight skeletons will be used. 
>I also added a -S <true_or_false> option to WSDL2Java to indicate whether
to deploy the skeleton (true) or the impl (false). >The default is currently
true. Enjoy, Rich Scheuerle XML & Web Services Development 512-838-5115 (IBM
TL 678-5115)