axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bu...@us.ibm.com
Subject Re: TCK issue: beans with full constructors?
Date Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:25:09 GMT
We all seem to agree.  The TCK should not REQUIRE the full constructor on
beans.

So now what's the process?  Should I start stepping through the "JAX-RPC
TCK Test Appeals Steps"?  Or are we allowed to shortcut that process by
talking directly with Rahul and company?  Sam?

Russell Butek
butek@us.ibm.com


"Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@macromedia.com> on 06/14/2002 05:16:26 AM

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

To:    <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
cc:
Subject:    Re: TCK issue:  beans with full constructors?



+1

While I don't have a strong opinion on whether full constructors are
implemented (we had them, now we don't, whatever :)), I definitely don't
think
they should be mandated.

--G

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@us.ibm.com>
To: <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: TCK issue: beans with full constructors?


> Greg Truty wrote :
> >
> > *the Bean class must provide zero-argument constructors so it can be
created **
> > using Beans.instantiate(),*
>
> Russell Butek wrote:
> >
> > The TCK requires generated beans to have full constructors.
>
>
> Note: these two statements are not necessarily in conflict. Witness the
> following code generated by the RI from
> http://www.xmethods.net/idemo/wsdl/ISupplier.wsdl:
>
>     public PO() {
>     }
>
>     public PO(supplier.POHeader header, supplier.POLine[] lines) {
>         this.header = header;
>         this.lines = lines;
>     }
>
> I believe that the Apache, IBM, (and possibly Macromedia?) positions
> should be simply that it is inappropriate for the RI and TCK to
> implement a such a feature as it is not in the spec.  While I agree with
> Russell's original note, this isn't the forum to discuss the merits of
> the feature - that's the domain of the expert group.  Meanwhile, it is
> not appropriate for the RI or TCK to be used as "back doors" to get
> standardization of features upon which the expert group did not agree to.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>


Mime
View raw message