axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Doug Davis" <...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Wsdl2Java
Date Tue, 04 Sep 2001 13:21:59 GMT
I understand the notion of interfaces 8-)  it's just that
when we're talking about producing code (or anything) I
would prefer if we generated as little as possible - less
things for the user to get confused by and less things to
go wrong.  Plus, if we're going to generate an interface
that will only be used by one implementation then the
interface doesn't really serve it's stated purpose - it's
just another java file that needs to be compiled.
It's not a huge thing.
-Dug


Russell Butek/Austin/IBM@IBMUS on 09/04/2001 09:13:59 AM

Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org

To:   axis-dev@xml.apache.org
cc:
Subject:  Re: Wsdl2Java



Tab characters?  There were tab characters in there?  Evil!

I'm not sure I understand your concern about generating interfaces.
Interfaces are good.  They keep people from programming to implementations.
Besides, JAX-RPC defines the generation of interfaces.

Good catch noticing the public instance vars.  It DOES look strange since
we also have accessors.  Think of it as evolving.  The first draft of
JAX-RPC I saw defined public instance vars and nothing else, but Axis
required beans (ie., accessors) so I compromised and generated both.  The
latest draft of JAX-RPC allows beans, and I've heard that Axis will soon
accept public instance vars, so we'll eventually go one way or the other.

Russell Butek
butek@us.ibm.com


Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS on 09/04/2001 07:26:28 AM

Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org

To:   axis-dev@xml.apache.org
cc:
Subject:  Wsdl2Java



Just took a very brief look at the Wsdl2Java...
- removed the evil tab characters
- why do we generate interfaces instead of just
  the proxy classes?  I understand that conceptually there
  are interfaces in WSDL but do we really expect people to
  do something with these java files - aside from compile
  them?  I could see having them generated thru a switch
  but it seems like the default should be to generate just
  the proxy classes w/o interfaces.  It feels like we're
  exposing the inner workings of WSDL simply because it's
  there when there is no direct benefit for the end-user.
  I know that it's possible that there will be multiple
  port types but we appear to only support one and don't
  have a mechanism to select which one (yet).  It seems
  like if there's only one port type then we should not
  bother to expose the interfaces.
  Just my $0.02.
- why are the instance vars of types "public"?  Didn't want
  to change this to "private" or "protected" w/o checking
  first in case there was a reason.
Cool stuff though!!
-Dug






Mime
View raw message