You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to java-dev@axis.apache.org by Russell Butek <bu...@us.ibm.com> on 2001/10/22 14:44:50 UTC
--package or not --package (was: Re: AXIS chat log for 9 October, 2001)
(Tom, sorry I missed your comments on this, I should have responded a week
ago.)
Ravi is right about the two issues. While --package seems more usable than
--NStoPkg or a config file, --package is NOT correct. If Wsdl2java
encounters multiple namespaces, it MUST map them to multiple package names.
We already have a sample - address book - that has 2 namespaces, one for
the WSDL stuff and one for the schema types. And I also pointed out an
example from the WSDL spec that places the individual WSDL elements into
different packages. Even the whitemesa interop tests have multiple
namespaces.
I don't understand the concern over a config file. It would be OPTIONAL
and only used in complex environments, so only folks that are already
dealing with the nastiness of complexities would have to worry about it. I
agree that we'd have to answer some questions - format (property file),
location, etc - but once those questions are answered it's not difficult.
I've written emitters that deal with property files, and Berin tells us
that Cocoon uses the command line/config file technique for arguments and
it's fairly standard. Let me repeat the suggested solution.
1. remove --package
2. add some sort of command line argument for the namespace-to-package
mappings (--NStoPkg <ns0> <pkg0> -N <ns1> <pkg1> ... -N <nsN> <pkgN>)
3. look for a mapping properties file
4. 2 takes precedence over 3
Do we need to vote on this?
Russell Butek
butek@us.ibm.com
Ravi Kumar <rk...@borland.com> on 10/20/2001 01:16:50 PM
Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org
To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
cc:
Subject: Re: AXIS chat log for 9 October, 2001
There are two issues here: usability and correctness.
If two types with the same name are populated into two different
namespaces, we
just have to handle it. Similarly, when exporting a class with the same
name from
two pakages, they need to be distinguishable.
As regards to usability, I don't have a strong preference between
--p and --NStoPkg or just -NStoPkg.
I agree there is going to be tooling around these anyway .... hmm, may be
we
should throw in a minimal UI!
Rgds
Ravi
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Tom Jordahl wrote:
> >
> > Are we keeping in mind the Use Case for Wsdl2java? I am writing an
> > application that does many things, one of which is to use a web
service. I
> > get the WSDL for the service, run the tool on it, and incorporate that
code
> > in to my code base. I can use the web service via the stub, I include
> > axis.jar in my classpath, then I go on with my coding. Do I really
want to
> > map namespace's here? Am I missing a use case that is going to be more
> > common?
>
> My feeling is that if someone hands you a non-trivial WSDL for you to
> implement (i.e., something a bit more that echo or bidbuy), then you will
> likely need to do some custom mappings - in particular provide your own
> serializers and deserializers. Ultimately, there will be a need for
third
> party wizards or other tooling to assist with this process.
>
> That does not meet that we should not continue to push back to keep the
> simple case simple (i.e., config file free).
>
> - Sam Ruby
Re: --package or not --package (was: Re: AXIS chat log for 9 October,
2001)
Posted by Ravi Kumar <rk...@borland.com>.
+1
Ravi
Russell Butek wrote:
> (Tom, sorry I missed your comments on this, I should have responded a week
> ago.)
>
> Ravi is right about the two issues. While --package seems more usable than
> --NStoPkg or a config file, --package is NOT correct. If Wsdl2java
> encounters multiple namespaces, it MUST map them to multiple package names.
> We already have a sample - address book - that has 2 namespaces, one for
> the WSDL stuff and one for the schema types. And I also pointed out an
> example from the WSDL spec that places the individual WSDL elements into
> different packages. Even the whitemesa interop tests have multiple
> namespaces.
>
> I don't understand the concern over a config file. It would be OPTIONAL
> and only used in complex environments, so only folks that are already
> dealing with the nastiness of complexities would have to worry about it. I
> agree that we'd have to answer some questions - format (property file),
> location, etc - but once those questions are answered it's not difficult.
> I've written emitters that deal with property files, and Berin tells us
> that Cocoon uses the command line/config file technique for arguments and
> it's fairly standard. Let me repeat the suggested solution.
>
> 1. remove --package
> 2. add some sort of command line argument for the namespace-to-package
> mappings (--NStoPkg <ns0> <pkg0> -N <ns1> <pkg1> ... -N <nsN> <pkgN>)
> 3. look for a mapping properties file
> 4. 2 takes precedence over 3
>
> Do we need to vote on this?
>
> Russell Butek
> butek@us.ibm.com
>
> Ravi Kumar <rk...@borland.com> on 10/20/2001 01:16:50 PM
>
> Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org
>
> To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> cc:
> Subject: Re: AXIS chat log for 9 October, 2001
>
> There are two issues here: usability and correctness.
> If two types with the same name are populated into two different
> namespaces, we
> just have to handle it. Similarly, when exporting a class with the same
> name from
> two pakages, they need to be distinguishable.
>
> As regards to usability, I don't have a strong preference between
> --p and --NStoPkg or just -NStoPkg.
> I agree there is going to be tooling around these anyway .... hmm, may be
> we
> should throw in a minimal UI!
>
> Rgds
> Ravi
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > Tom Jordahl wrote:
> > >
> > > Are we keeping in mind the Use Case for Wsdl2java? I am writing an
> > > application that does many things, one of which is to use a web
> service. I
> > > get the WSDL for the service, run the tool on it, and incorporate that
> code
> > > in to my code base. I can use the web service via the stub, I include
> > > axis.jar in my classpath, then I go on with my coding. Do I really
> want to
> > > map namespace's here? Am I missing a use case that is going to be more
> > > common?
> >
> > My feeling is that if someone hands you a non-trivial WSDL for you to
> > implement (i.e., something a bit more that echo or bidbuy), then you will
> > likely need to do some custom mappings - in particular provide your own
> > serializers and deserializers. Ultimately, there will be a need for
> third
> > party wizards or other tooling to assist with this process.
> >
> > That does not meet that we should not continue to push back to keep the
> > simple case simple (i.e., config file free).
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
Re: --package or not --package (was: Re: AXIS chat log for 9 October, 2001)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
Here's my +1 for the suggested solution.
Thanks,
dims
--- Russell Butek <bu...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> (Tom, sorry I missed your comments on this, I should have responded a week
> ago.)
>
> Ravi is right about the two issues. While --package seems more usable than
> --NStoPkg or a config file, --package is NOT correct. If Wsdl2java
> encounters multiple namespaces, it MUST map them to multiple package names.
> We already have a sample - address book - that has 2 namespaces, one for
> the WSDL stuff and one for the schema types. And I also pointed out an
> example from the WSDL spec that places the individual WSDL elements into
> different packages. Even the whitemesa interop tests have multiple
> namespaces.
>
> I don't understand the concern over a config file. It would be OPTIONAL
> and only used in complex environments, so only folks that are already
> dealing with the nastiness of complexities would have to worry about it. I
> agree that we'd have to answer some questions - format (property file),
> location, etc - but once those questions are answered it's not difficult.
> I've written emitters that deal with property files, and Berin tells us
> that Cocoon uses the command line/config file technique for arguments and
> it's fairly standard. Let me repeat the suggested solution.
>
> 1. remove --package
> 2. add some sort of command line argument for the namespace-to-package
> mappings (--NStoPkg <ns0> <pkg0> -N <ns1> <pkg1> ... -N <nsN> <pkgN>)
> 3. look for a mapping properties file
> 4. 2 takes precedence over 3
>
> Do we need to vote on this?
>
> Russell Butek
> butek@us.ibm.com
>
>
> Ravi Kumar <rk...@borland.com> on 10/20/2001 01:16:50 PM
>
> Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org
>
> To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> cc:
> Subject: Re: AXIS chat log for 9 October, 2001
>
>
>
> There are two issues here: usability and correctness.
> If two types with the same name are populated into two different
> namespaces, we
> just have to handle it. Similarly, when exporting a class with the same
> name from
> two pakages, they need to be distinguishable.
>
> As regards to usability, I don't have a strong preference between
> --p and --NStoPkg or just -NStoPkg.
> I agree there is going to be tooling around these anyway .... hmm, may be
> we
> should throw in a minimal UI!
>
> Rgds
> Ravi
>
>
>
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > Tom Jordahl wrote:
> > >
> > > Are we keeping in mind the Use Case for Wsdl2java? I am writing an
> > > application that does many things, one of which is to use a web
> service. I
> > > get the WSDL for the service, run the tool on it, and incorporate that
> code
> > > in to my code base. I can use the web service via the stub, I include
> > > axis.jar in my classpath, then I go on with my coding. Do I really
> want to
> > > map namespace's here? Am I missing a use case that is going to be more
> > > common?
> >
> > My feeling is that if someone hands you a non-trivial WSDL for you to
> > implement (i.e., something a bit more that echo or bidbuy), then you will
> > likely need to do some custom mappings - in particular provide your own
> > serializers and deserializers. Ultimately, there will be a need for
> third
> > party wizards or other tooling to assist with this process.
> >
> > That does not meet that we should not continue to push back to keep the
> > simple case simple (i.e., config file free).
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://jguru.com/dims/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com