cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: Our old friend arg0
Date Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:21:16 GMT

I've recently developed a fondness for Simple, and let me explain why,
because I think you are going to tell me that I'm confused.

I don't ever want a client to read a WSDL from the server, or anywhere
else. I am using CXF as a transport between a set of components that
all belong to me, and are developed in sync, and do not need the extra
time and complexity of WSDL machinations. I also don't even want to
consume one neuron on worrying about proxy thread-safety.

My understanding is that JAX-WS reserves the right to screw me if I
don't read the WSDL into the client endpoint, even if it *should*
*usually* work. I don't like to be explaining those *'s to skeptical

If, in fact, the spec for JAX-WS legitimizes my simple case, I'd much
prefer to be configuring with snails and using JAX-WS+Aegis.


On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Kulp <> wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 October 2010 7:52:52 am Benson Margulies wrote:
>> I found myself explaining the 'interfaces don't carry param names'
>> business to a coworker the other day. Thinking about it, I realized
>> that there's still a pretty good trap hiding in all this, and I'm
>> wondering if we should do something about it.
>> Here's my theoretical trap. Unsuspecting Java-first implementor has
>> options set to compile Java with debug info, so there are parameter
>> names in their interfaces.
>> Some day, some evil build engineer comes along and removes the symbols
>> from the production build. Oops, new WSDL.
>> It seems to me that it would be better if the factories accepted a
>> boolean that instructed them to ignore the param names in interfaces,
>> so as to produce repeatable results regardless of the compile options.
>> Presumably, this isn't in the JAX-WS spec, but we could do it for Simple.
> The simple frontend really needs a ConfigurableServiceConfiguration object or
> similar that provides a bunch of configuration points.   The one-way issue is
> another one.   It could have a "setOneWays(List<String>) or similar for the
> list of one-way methods, the flag you mention above, etc....   Maybe a
> "setMethodParamNames(Map<String, List<String>)" type things to allow people
> configure in custome parameter names.
> That said, I'm increasingly been wondering why people still use the simple
> frontend.  :-)   I think the JAX-WS frontend handles everything the simple
> frontend handles.   (aegis vs jaxb is a different issue)    But the JAX-WS
> frontend is WAY more controllable from within the code via annotations.
> --
> Daniel Kulp

View raw message