RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12923] - Message Services don't support m u liple methods anymore

[Glen Daniels <gd...@macromedia.com>]

Actually, I'm suggesting that <namespace></namespace> is equivalent to no <namespace> at all, i.e. the namespace MUST be "" (the default) for incoming XML.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to generate bodies with no namespace.

--Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:03 PM
> To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12923] - Message Services 
> don't support m
> uliple methods anymore
> 
> Just to be clear, if the Body _does_ have a namespace but the 
> WSDD does
> _not_ have the <namespace> element will it work (like it used 
> to)?  If so,
> then I think I'm ok with this.  I don't think its possible to 
> generate a
> Body w/o a namespace right now.  I think when I tried Axis complained.
> -Dug
> 
> 
> Glen Daniels <gd...@macromedia.com> on 09/23/2002 12:50:46 PM
> 
> Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> 
> To:    "'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'" <ax...@xml.apache.org>
> cc:
> Subject:    RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12923]  -  Message Services 
> don't support
>        m    uliple methods anymore
> 
> 
> 
> Namespace does matter in the RPC case, but we will try to fall back to
> ignoring it, which I think is actually a BAD thing, and I also think
> ignoring it is especially bad for doc/message services.
> 
> If you want to have no namespace (i.e. <method>) that should 
> be fine, but I
> think we shouldn't just accept anything.  We're going to need to emit
> schema for this stuff eventually, and that should dictate 
> what people send.
> 
> How about this:
> 
> We'll generate OperationDescs for every allowed method on 
> Message-based
> services.  If you specify QNames in the WSDD, they'll be mapped as per
> usual to those methods.  If you don't, we will use the 
> namespace of the
> service as specified in the WSDD to generate QNames, 
> defaulting to "".  So:
> 
> <service name="foo" provider="java:MSG">
>   <parameter name="allowedMethods" value="*"/>
>   <parameter name="className" value="Foo"/>
> </service>
> 
> public class Foo {
>     public Element [] method1(Element [] arg);
>     public Element [] method2(Element [] arg);
> }
> 
> will look for "<method1>" and "<method2>".  If you add:
> 
> <namespace>http://foo</namespace>
> 
> to the WSDD, we'll then look for "<ns:method1 
> xmlns:ns='http://foo'>", etc.
> 
> --Glen
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bugzilla@apache.org [mailto:bugzilla@apache.org]
> > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 12:33 PM
> > To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12923] - Message Services don't support
> > muliple methods anymore
> >
> >
> > DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
> > RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
> > <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12923>.
> > ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
> > INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
> >
> > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12923
> >
> > Message Services don't support muliple methods anymore
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------- Additional Comments From dug@us.ibm.com  2002-09-23
> > 16:32 -------
> > Does the namespace matter in the RPC case?  Not sure, but I
> > don't think it does.
> > My inclination would be to get it back to the way it was so that
> > it doesn't break existing users.  If its possible to extend it so
> > that it will _also_ support the notion of namespace 
> qualification then
> > that could be added in addition to the non-NS qualification support.
> >
> 
> 
>