axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Russell Butek" <>
Subject Re: method mapping
Date Fri, 07 Dec 2001 14:34:39 GMT
OK, so call the things "operationName" and "<operation".  That's more
WSDL-like.  The name's not a big deal.  The idea that we have to do some
sort of mapping is.

The more I think about it, the more I prefer Sam's approach (especially
since he's volunteered to do the WSDD side of things!).  Option 1 - a list
of blank-separated strings - is not particularly pretty, as Sanjiva says
(it's just simple solution for a simple problem - which is turning out not
to be so simple).  Option 3 appears to be a step toward option 2 while not
touching the existing way things work, but it looks like a half-step (ption
1 could be described this way, too).  Option 2 will be more extensible if
we come up with more requirements on operation names.

Russell Butek

"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <> on 12/07/2001 08:19:52 AM

Please respond to

To:   <>
Subject:  Re: method mapping

> <service name="myService" provider="java:RPC">
>   <parameter name="className" value="myServiceClass"/>
>   <parameter name="methodName" value="doit _new"/>
>   <parameter name="scope" value="Session"/>
>   <map type="methodName" name="new" map="_new"/>
> </service>
> What I didn't like about option 2 (and is nice about
> options 1 (and 3)) is that it doesn't introduce a
> 'method' element - which is really tied to a specific
> type of service (RPC and somewhat to messaging).  Opts 1
> and 3 keep it generic - everything is just parameters.
> Opt 3 does introduce a new element, but its generic and
> can be used by anything by simply changing the
> "type" of mapping.

This is just yet another example of attributes vs. elements;
the combination '<map type="methodName"' is unique
to the RPC provider just as much as '<method' is ..


View raw message