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 Glen Daniels <gd...@macromedia.com> on 2002/08/13 19:50:06 UTC
RE: ATTN RICH (when you get back) : Java2WSDL Emitter and multipl
e serviceDescs
?
I don't see how the two relate - could you expand on that?
--G
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scheu@us.ibm.com [mailto:scheu@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 1:47 PM
> To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: ATTN RICH (when you get back) : Java2WSDL Emitter and
> multipl e serviceDescs
>
>
> Ahh ...I think that was the reason for the Java2WSDL
> SequenceTest that was
> removed.
>
> Rich Scheuerle
> IBM WebSphere & Axis Web Services Development
> 512-838-5115 (IBM TL 678-5115)
>
>
>
>
> Glen Daniels
>
> <gdaniels@macrome To:
> "Axis-Dev (E-mail)" <ax...@xml.apache.org>
>
> dia.com> cc:
>
> Subject: RE:
> ATTN RICH (when you get back) : Java2WSDL Emitter and multipl
> 08/09/2002 03:50 e
> serviceDescs
>
> PM
>
> Please respond to
>
> axis-dev
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hey Rich, this question has already been answered in another
> thread (RE:
> Java2WSDL: unable to generate argument names for methods in
> interfaces) - I
> didn't realize that javac didn't compile in the param names
> for interfaces,
> just classes.
>
> So, we should build a test for this at some point, but I get
> it now. :)
>
> --Glen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Glen Daniels
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 9:22 AM
> > To: Axis-Dev (E-mail)
> > Subject: ATTN RICH (when you get back) : Java2WSDL Emitter
> > and multiple
> > serviceDescs
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Rich (and welcome back!):
> >
> > What's the deal with "serviceDesc2" in the Emitter? It seems
> > to be there to deal with the case where the parameter names
> > are different between the interface and implementation
> > classes? I don't understand why we should particularly want
> > the implementation names more than the interface ones in such
> > a case, since it's the interface we're really exposing....
> >
> > I removed this code in my sandbox and everything still worked
> > like a charm, so along the "simplicity and efficiency" track,
> > I'd like to either understand why it's good to have (and have
> > something which tests it), or remove it.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --Glen
> >
>
>
>