You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to c-dev@axis.apache.org by Ahab Abouzour <ea...@yahoo.com> on 2005/05/19 21:21:29 UTC
WSDL2Ws tool and wrapped vs nonwrapped
I've ran the tool with both -wwrapped and -wnonwrapped
switches but didn't see any difference in the code
that is generated. I used base.wsdl for that. After
the files were generated I Windiff'd both directories
only to find they're identical.
Am I using this switch in the wrong way? and can
comeone please breifly explain(or point me to reading
resource) of the difference between the two. I'm
guessing the generated SOAP should be different (I
would like to see an example of that if possible).
Thanks.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Re: WSDL2Ws tool and wrapped vs nonwrapped
Posted by John Hawkins <HA...@uk.ibm.com>.
If I remember from when I looked into this - unwrapped is practically not
implemented (as can be seen) I was going to remove this option from
WSDL2Ws
Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@virtusa.com>
20/05/2005 12:54
Please respond to
"Apache AXIS C Developers List"
To
Apache AXIS C Developers List <ax...@ws.apache.org>
cc
Subject
Re: WSDL2Ws tool and wrapped vs nonwrapped
This feature, though implemented some time back, is not well tested.
Unfortunately, we have very little documentation on this.
If any original authers are out there, please help here. Else one would
have to have a look into the WSDL2Ws tool and establish what is
happening here.
As per the command line help, wrapped is the default - hence I assume
wrapped is working properly.
Thanks,
Samisa...
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 19:21, Ahab Abouzour wrote:
> I've ran the tool with both -wwrapped and -wnonwrapped
> switches but didn't see any difference in the code
> that is generated. I used base.wsdl for that. After
> the files were generated I Windiff'd both directories
> only to find they're identical.
>
> Am I using this switch in the wrong way? and can
> comeone please breifly explain(or point me to reading
> resource) of the difference between the two. I'm
> guessing the generated SOAP should be different (I
> would like to see an example of that if possible).
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
--
Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@virtusa.com>
Virtusa Corporation
Re: WSDL2Ws tool and wrapped vs nonwrapped
Posted by Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@virtusa.com>.
This feature, though implemented some time back, is not well tested.
Unfortunately, we have very little documentation on this.
If any original authers are out there, please help here. Else one would
have to have a look into the WSDL2Ws tool and establish what is
happening here.
As per the command line help, wrapped is the default - hence I assume
wrapped is working properly.
Thanks,
Samisa...
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 19:21, Ahab Abouzour wrote:
> I've ran the tool with both -wwrapped and -wnonwrapped
> switches but didn't see any difference in the code
> that is generated. I used base.wsdl for that. After
> the files were generated I Windiff'd both directories
> only to find they're identical.
>
> Am I using this switch in the wrong way? and can
> comeone please breifly explain(or point me to reading
> resource) of the difference between the two. I'm
> guessing the generated SOAP should be different (I
> would like to see an example of that if possible).
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
--
Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@virtusa.com>
Virtusa Corporation