cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benson Margulies" <bim2...@basistech.com>
Subject RE: Is the idea of wsdl2java (aegis) really useful?
Date Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:21:20 GMT
Jim,

I can see your point. On the other hand, unless xjc can be coopted,
wsdl->aegis will be a really big project. The doc I've found on xjc is
really uninformative, so I have not been able to convince myself that it
could be persuaded to write additional files. I suppose that if it would
write additional comments we could post-process.

I have a strategy in mind if we decide to go here.

Step 1 is to define Aegis as being complementary to JAXB instead of
completely parallel.

Then, step 2 is to implement ->aegis by concentrating on the cases you
cite with real value, instead of a complete recreation of xjc.

--benson


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Ma [mailto:ema@iona.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 11:50 PM
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Is the idea of wsdl2java (aegis) really useful?
> 
> Hi Benson ,
> 
> As far as I can see , aegis data binding is complementary to JAXB
> whether from java-> wsdl or
> wsdl-> java direction .
> 
> I have not dug into aegis data binding code to find out if it can do
the
> following things ,but i think
> having these feature in wsdl2java  makes sense :
> 1. Generating simple code-first-liked  java class that easy to
understand.
> 2. Generating java.util.Data type without add a XmlTypAdaptor
> customization to map xsd:dateto java.util.Date
>    and other thing we need to use jaxb customization to map a shcema
> type to a common jdk class.
> And also we can use aegis data binding in wsdl first direction as it's
a
> faster and  StAX based data binding .
> 
> Since there are  some data types  that aegis does not support ,  maybe
> we can add this support  in wsdl2java
> later.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benson Margulies wrote:
> > I trust that our colleagues on the far side of the Pacific are
reading
> > this thread and will chime in if they disagree, as they were the
ones
> > who asked me if I intended to proceed to the 'other direction,' I
think.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan.diephouse@mulesource.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 4:14 PM
> > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Is the idea of wsdl2java (aegis) really useful?
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah, I think its definitely a waste of time to do an Aegis
> > schema->java. We would gain absolutely no benefit from it as far as
I
> > can tell :-)
> >
> > - Dan
> >
> > Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >
> > I had this conversation with Dan D. before and the thoughts were
pretty
> > much exactly the same.   If you are generating java code from
schema,
> > you should use the "standard" JAXB stuff since that supports more of
the
> >
> > schema types than Aegis does.    Aegis is primarily targeted for the
> > Java first case.   Having java -> wsdl tools for it makes sense.
> > However, the wsdl -> java stuff makes less sense.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > On Friday 21 September 2007, Benson Margulies wrote:
> >
> >
> > 	I'm wondering why anyone would want this. If the user is going
> > to run
> > 	a code generator, what's wrong with JAXB? The virtue of Aegis is
> > to
> > 	avoid an infestation of snails (@) in existing code. Once you
> > are
> > 	firing up a generator, it's new code.
> >
> >
> >
> > 	I note that Aegis has some not-very-documented capabilities, and
> > I
> > 	wonder if some of them are superior to JAXB in some way.
> >
> >
> >
> > 	Do we ever post some sort of [POLL] to the user list asking 'who
> > would
> > 	use this feature' questions?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Mime
View raw message