axis-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adhamh Findlay <>
Subject Re: Adding fields to autogenerated java classes (wsdl2java)
Date Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:14:59 GMT

I've just been working on this!  I've finally had some success too.  Here
are the signatures of a couple of methods I added.

    #I use main to run the SimpleAxisServer so I don't need Tomcat
    #this is unsupported...
    public static void main(String[] args) {}
    #This method calls a command line app and passes arguments to it.
    private String openDialogListener(String command, String args) {}

I also had a custom class hierarchy that I edited.  WSDL2Java create
serialized versions, then I added my custom code.

I have a bug (or two) in the code, but does not appear to result from the
custom methods... Err the bug is in the added methods, but it's inside my


On 9/24/03 5:26 PM, "Liang, Kevin" <> wrote:

> Hi,
> I have a question that I was wondering if anyone can help me with.
> I am new to axis, and I have some wsdl files that I currently use to generate
> template java classes using wsdl2java tool that was provided.
> I started to write code into the classes, only to find out that I will need a
> field in one of the classes to maintain relationships.  However, only I will
> be using this, while the client should not be able to access this value.  I
> would like to simply add a field into the class that was generated by wsdl,
> but I am afraid that it will modify the schema (the client has a strict wsdl
> schema structure and I would not want to change that structure).  I can, of
> course, create a table and maintain the relationship that way, but I rather
> not hack it.  
> I was searching around and I read that axis uses some kind of bean serializer,
> and thus it looks for getter and setter methods to determine the schema.  I am
> wondering if this is true?  If so, then I can just add this field as a public
> field and not have a getter and setter method.  I would much rather prefer
> this way than creating another table to maintain the relationship.
> Can anyone confirm this?  Or can anyone point me to where I can read about
> adding a new field into a class without violating or changing the original
> schema?
> Thanks!
> Kevin 

View raw message