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 change
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:16:35 GMT





Tom,
  You're missing my point - upgrading from 1.0 to 1.1 should be as painless
as possible.  This is just one instance, of many, where things have changed
"for good reasons" without concern for existing code.  Initially people
made
serious API changes after 1.0, we've managed to put those back in, and at
the time
they made the same arguments your making now.  If a flag (or some other
means
of supporting existing users) isn't added then fine - we'll work around it
- we
have for other things, but I still believe a "customer first" attitude is
the right
approach.
-Dug


Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com> on 03/11/2003 03:01:43 PM

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

To:    "'axis-dev@ws.apache.org'" <axis-dev@ws.apache.org>
cc:
Subject:    RE: wsdl2java change



I would say no, we should not add a flag for this.

We knew Axis 1.0 had problems and that we would have to fix them.  This is
an (unfortunate) instance where someone got bitten by something we did
wrong.  But I would argue that the behavior now is correct, and the past
behavior is just broken.  It seems a bit premature to put in switches to
preserve broken 1.0 behavior.

So you had things in different namespaces, but you never collided on the
names and you expected them all to be in the same package?  That just seems
weird.  What if you had two things with the same name?

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 2:49 PM
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: RE: wsdl2java change






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?
-Dug


Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com> on 03/11/2003 02:38:43 PM

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

To:    "'axis-dev@ws.apache.org'" <axis-dev@ws.apache.org>
cc:
Subject:    RE: wsdl2java change


Hi Dug,

Actually, we FIXED this to differentiate between the two namespaces
http://www.ibm.com/foo and http://www.ibm.com/bar.

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 [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 2:35 PM
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
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 http://www.ibm.com/foo 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?
-Dug






Mime
View raw message