Aegis: Mapping File

[Raj Floyd <ra...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

What is the advantage of using Aegis mapping file? I went through the
samples that had Aegis example. The mapping file had the mapped name as
'greeting'. The actual parameter name was 'text'. I ran the sample, saw the
generated WSDL where it reflected 'greeting' as a param name and the SOAP
payload also had the name 'greeting'. My question is:

1. Do we use mapping file to give some appropriate name to the method params
or return types say instead of 'arg0' or 'return' ? How does it help? Why
would I do it versus why can't I simply invoke my service method without
bothering about mapping file? (ofcourse with Aegis databinding).

Thx

Raj

Re: Aegis: Mapping File

[Raj Floyd <ra...@gmail.com>]

Thanks Benson. One more question:

Say if I decide not to use Aegis mapping file, how will I know that I am
using Aegis databinding. I have already set my client and server code to use
Aegis databinding (setDatabinding(..)). But how will I ensure that I am
indeed using Aegis and not other databinding. Is there any way to test?

Thx

Raj



On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Some people are estheticians of XML. They care.
>
> Some people are trying to make Aegis interoperate with other things. I
> personally don't recommend this, since it can't eat a WSDL, and you're
> left trying to make tweaks to the mapping file or @annotations to try
> to achieve compatibility.
>
> If you are planning to run wsdl2java or some equivalent, controlling
> these names may get you much more readable code.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Raj Floyd <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > What is the advantage of using Aegis mapping file? I went through the
> > samples that had Aegis example. The mapping file had the mapped name as
> > 'greeting'. The actual parameter name was 'text'. I ran the sample, saw
> the
> > generated WSDL where it reflected 'greeting' as a param name and the SOAP
> > payload also had the name 'greeting'. My question is:
> >
> > 1. Do we use mapping file to give some appropriate name to the method
> params
> > or return types say instead of 'arg0' or 'return' ? How does it help? Why
> > would I do it versus why can't I simply invoke my service method without
> > bothering about mapping file? (ofcourse with Aegis databinding).
> >
> > Thx
> >
> > Raj
> >
>

Re: Aegis: Mapping File

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

Some people are estheticians of XML. They care.

Some people are trying to make Aegis interoperate with other things. I
personally don't recommend this, since it can't eat a WSDL, and you're
left trying to make tweaks to the mapping file or @annotations to try
to achieve compatibility.

If you are planning to run wsdl2java or some equivalent, controlling
these names may get you much more readable code.


On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Raj Floyd <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the advantage of using Aegis mapping file? I went through the
> samples that had Aegis example. The mapping file had the mapped name as
> 'greeting'. The actual parameter name was 'text'. I ran the sample, saw the
> generated WSDL where it reflected 'greeting' as a param name and the SOAP
> payload also had the name 'greeting'. My question is:
>
> 1. Do we use mapping file to give some appropriate name to the method params
> or return types say instead of 'arg0' or 'return' ? How does it help? Why
> would I do it versus why can't I simply invoke my service method without
> bothering about mapping file? (ofcourse with Aegis databinding).
>
> Thx
>
> Raj
>