axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Deepal jayasinghe <>
Subject Re: Looking into open issue 3364
Date Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:48:43 GMT
Hi Glen,
>> As I mentioned in the JIRA, I did a local fix and get  that working,
>> however most of the java2wsdl and some runtime code generation tests
>> failed. So I did not commit the changes. My changes only involve in
>> SchemaGenerator, and it is very simple fix. Only thing is to make sure
>> you get the test cases working. Currently for any input type it sets
>> minoccurs to 0 , so you just need to change that to 1.
> So you're saying we shouldn't support optional parameters, and
> therefore we should be throwing an exception for missing parameters? 
> And we shouldn't be able to pass null values?  Hmm...
Well I was referring to generate WSDL to cope with RPC MR. I agree with
you, but to handle those we need to fix the RPC MR. So my suggestion was
to get what working right, and then address the improvements later.
> I think we should be able to be as expressive and simple as possible
> in making our schemas align with the Java structure - and supporting
> missing wire parameters which will become null values for Object types
> certainly seems reasonable toward that end.
Agreed. But if you put minoccurs=0 , that's mean it is possible that
parameter not appear in the request. Of course we handle nillable
correctly. In my understanding nillable and minoccurs are two different
things (please correct me if I am wrong)
> In other words, IMO we should support on the server side:
> Type        Result if missing    Schema
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> primitive    exception        minOc=1
+1, but we need to burn schema aware passing logic into RPC MR.
> Object        null            minOc=0
Nope, here we need to add additional "nillable=true" attribute for
complex types.
> Also, this way if the client wants to send a null there's a way to do
> it (don't include the param).
> This doesn't seem that hard to do, and I think it makes for nicer REST
> URLs and SOAP messages in some cases.
> Thoughts?
> --Glen

Thank you!

View raw message