axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Davis <>
Subject RE: wsdl2java change
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:48:50 GMT

I understand the desire for the change, but we need to be more
careful - upgrading from 1.0 to 1.1 should not require weeks worth
of work - which is what it has become for us.  Some of the changes
are good (noticing more errors in wsdl docs and such) but some
things, like this, are real b*ll-busters for people.  When a change
like this goes in it would be much nicer if a flag were added to
allow people the old and new functionality (people can then argue
about the default) and it can be removed when 2.0 goes out.
But the ultimate goal for a "point" release should
be "drop-n-go", not "drop and devote weeks of development time
figuring out all of the changes in APIs and behavior".  It only limits
Axis' success and acceptability.  So, can we get a flag added?

Tom Jordahl <> on 03/11/2003 02:38:43 PM

Please respond to

To:    "''" <>
Subject:    RE: wsdl2java change

Hi Dug,

Actually, we FIXED this to differentiate between the two namespaces and

This is probably going to be a very common case, as companies will want to
have more than a single package for everything in their namespaces.

I believe this was fixed before 1.1 beta was released....

Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Davis []
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 2:35 PM
Subject: wsdl2java change

Since Axis 1.0 wsdl2java has changed behavior w.r.t. how it
converts namespaces into package names.  In the past if
the namespace was then the
package would be just com/ibm/www, but now it appears
as though there's an extra level ("foo") being generated.
Is this intentional?  And more importantly was it worth breaking
compatibility with 1.0?  While most of us are aware that breaking
Axis APIs isn't good people need to be aware that people are using
and counting on the tools (java2wsdl and wsdl2java) to remain
stable as well - and they will treat their functionality and APIs
just like Axis APIs.  So, back to the original question, did we
really mean to break this functionality?

View raw message