You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> on 2008/01/17 21:17:36 UTC
MtoM test question
There is a wsdl for MtoM. It seems to have a fairly simple structure of
types and elements.
Yet the wsdl2java for it concocts these complex INOUT holders.
Why?
Re: MtoM test question
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
I originally wanted a mapping to String, but JAXB then went and
delivered the base64, not the string.
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 17:40 -0500, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> http://fisheye5.cenqua.com/browse/~raw,r=1.2/jax-ws-sources/jaxws-ri/docs/mtom-swaref.html
Re: MtoM test question
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Hmm... I think I see what you mean. According to jaxb pdf spec, the
text/plain should be mapped to a DataHandler, not a String.
Although:
http://fisheye5.cenqua.com/browse/~raw,r=1.2/jax-ws-sources/jaxws-ri/docs/mtom-swaref.html
seems to imply otherwise.
In anycase, the 2.1 runtime seems to not handle String as mimes at all,
always outputting them inline as string. Sounds like another JAXB bug.
:-(
Dan
On Thursday 17 January 2008, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Thursday 17 January 2008, Benson Margulies wrote:
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Relatedly, if wsdl2java produces 'the wrong thing' in terms of field
> > type, is there some wsdl extension to shake it by the lapels?
>
> I guess the question is: what do you mean by "wrong thing"?
>
> Dan
>
> > On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:17 -0500, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > > On Thursday 17 January 2008, Benson Margulies wrote:
> > > > There is a wsdl for MtoM. It seems to have a fairly simple
> > > > structure of types and elements.
> > > >
> > > > Yet the wsdl2java for it concocts these complex INOUT holders.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Because the names (and types) of parameters for the INs match the
> > > names of the OUTS. Thus, the spec state that those are to be
> > > considered INOUT parameters which thus require Holders.
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer, IONA
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: MtoM test question
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Thursday 17 January 2008, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> Relatedly, if wsdl2java produces 'the wrong thing' in terms of field
> type, is there some wsdl extension to shake it by the lapels?
I guess the question is: what do you mean by "wrong thing"?
Dan
>
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:17 -0500, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 January 2008, Benson Margulies wrote:
> > > There is a wsdl for MtoM. It seems to have a fairly simple
> > > structure of types and elements.
> > >
> > > Yet the wsdl2java for it concocts these complex INOUT holders.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because the names (and types) of parameters for the INs match the
> > names of the OUTS. Thus, the spec state that those are to be
> > considered INOUT parameters which thus require Holders.
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer, IONA
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: MtoM test question
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Thanks.
Relatedly, if wsdl2java produces 'the wrong thing' in terms of field
type, is there some wsdl extension to shake it by the lapels?
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:17 -0500, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Thursday 17 January 2008, Benson Margulies wrote:
> > There is a wsdl for MtoM. It seems to have a fairly simple structure
> > of types and elements.
> >
> > Yet the wsdl2java for it concocts these complex INOUT holders.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because the names (and types) of parameters for the INs match the names
> of the OUTS. Thus, the spec state that those are to be considered
> INOUT parameters which thus require Holders.
>
Re: MtoM test question
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Thursday 17 January 2008, Benson Margulies wrote:
> There is a wsdl for MtoM. It seems to have a fairly simple structure
> of types and elements.
>
> Yet the wsdl2java for it concocts these complex INOUT holders.
>
> Why?
Because the names (and types) of parameters for the INs match the names
of the OUTS. Thus, the spec state that those are to be considered
INOUT parameters which thus require Holders.
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer, IONA
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog