axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject [jira] Commented: (AXIS-1614) Name collision of generated code caused by AXIS-1598
Date Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:52:26 GMT
The following comment has been added to this issue:

     Author: Jongjin Choi
    Created: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:51 AM
Dims, Ias, Sam, Jarek.

As a reporter and contributor for AXIS-1614 and AXIS-1598,
I don't insist that they should be included in Axis 1.2 release. 
There were much concern for these patches during last week.
You, axis devs, can decide to postpone this pactches until next release.

But I think the Axis guys should be concerned over the jax-rpc 1.1 conformance more than now.
Also in Axis 2.0 release, jax-rpc 2.0 should be considered.

View this comment:

View the issue:

Here is an overview of the issue:
        Key: AXIS-1614
    Summary: Name collision of generated code caused by AXIS-1598
       Type: Bug

     Status: Open
   Priority: Major

    Project: Axis
             WSDL processing
             current (nightly)

   Assignee: Ias
   Reporter: Jongjin Choi

    Created: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 1:25 AM
    Updated: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:51 AM

After AXIS 1598 was applied, we met a naming problem that did not exist before.

* Problem
WSDL2Java can not process the wsdl which has the same name in portType, operation, complexType
and/or other stuff in it.

* Solution
The 4.3.12 of JAX-RPC 1.1 spec addressed this kind of naming collisions. This is partly implemented
in current Axis. 
The attached patch makes it a little more compliant to JAX-RPC spec.
This also solves the name collision problem of AXIS-1598.

* Caution
In current axis, Axis uses suffixes to resolve the name collision. For xsd:element and wsdl:portType,
the suffixes are:
xsd:element -> _ElemType
wsdl:PortType -> _Port

But in JAX-RPC 1.1 spec, the suffixes are:
xsd:element -> _Element
wsdl:PortType -> _PortType

I follow the way of JAX-RPC 1.1 in this patch. 

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.

If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:

If you want more information on JIRA, or have a bug to report see:

View raw message