Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-axis-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 53122 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jul 2002 19:26:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 53101 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2002 19:26:34 -0000 Message-ID: <3D41A1FC.3070101@apache.org> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:24:44 -0400 From: Sam Ruby User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org Subject: Re: Support for xsd:anyURI - Proposal References: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.62.4.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Glen Daniels wrote: > Typing is critically important when passing data around. If you have > an AxisURI class, you can unambigiously know how to serialize that on > the wire in exchange for a little added complexity setting/getting > values. I think this is the right way to go - otherwise you risk > major interoperability problems unless you are VERY careful with your > metadata. The very real risk exists that every component that one deploys in a system defined their own mapping of XML concepts to their own component specific type. I would suggest that if we don't find an existing Java construct to map to, then we should work with the JAX RPC experts group to define one. - Sam Ruby