DII only-
Literal is what is encouraged these days and only literal is WSI BP
compliant-
Kathy
Ryan LeCompte wrote:
>Thank you for the clarifications, Kathy. Are you saying that the 2.0 draft
>of JAX-RPC discourages the use of doc/literal web services in general, or
>only their use with DII?
>
>-- Ryan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: kathy walsh [mailto:Kathleen.Walsh_at_Sun.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 11:12 AM
>To: users_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>Subject: Re: Correct client file
>
>
>
>Ryan LeCompte wrote:
>
>
>
>>Kathy,
>>
>>I compared your DII cient with mine, and it appears that the "fix" is
>>where you modified the generated serializer registry code that was
>>copied into the DII client. It looks like you are using the element
>>name as opposed to the complex type name as the local part of the Qname
>>("data" as opposed to "tData", which is how the serializer registry code is
>>
>>
>generated by default):
>
>
>>...
>>{
>> QName type = new QName("urn:com.test.webservice/types", "data");
>> CombinedSerializer serializer = new
>>customer_tests.dii_complex_doclit.client.TData_LiteralSerializer(type,
>>"", DONT_ENCODE_TYPE);
>> registerSerializer(mapping2,
>>customer_tests.dii_complex_doclit.client.TData.class, type,
>>serializer); }
>>
>>This appears to fix the problem.
>>
>>
>>
>Ryan-
>Call.invokeOneWay() goes through the same code path as in the static stub
>case- You are saying that it blocks? The difference may be in that with dii
>with wsdl, JAXRPC-RI actually is building a dataStructure of the wsdl in
>memory and attempting to build a dynamic serializer for the given parameter
>types. In this case, the parameter type was a complex type which dii has
>difficulty with- The fallback is that you need to register custom
>serializers, which negates the portability benefit of using dii- This is why
>we discourage the use of dii with complex types. In addition, as I mentioned
>previously, dii was not intended for use with document(or rpc) literal xml,
>at the time the JAXRPC 1.0 specification, use with soap encoding was the
>intent.
>
>As for the minimal change in registering the serializers in the client code,
>dii creates dynamic serializers a bit differently the static case.
>The dii runtime must traverse the data structure created from the wsdl and
>use that data structure to create serializers that will correctly serialize
>with the appropriate use/style in the wsdl. With use/style doc/lit or
>rpc/literal, this is very difficult. The serializers created in memory will
>be a bit different that in the static case.
>
>Lastly, If you download the early draft of the JAXRPC 2.0 specification use
>of literal is discouraged.
>
>All that said, I agree that the best solution for you is to use static
>stubs.
>Please let me know if you have more questions, help- Kathy
>
>
>
>>Thank you for taking the time to
>>investigate this! I've actually decided to use a static stub based
>>approach for my doc style web service, since static stubs still support
>>one-way operations and do not block (which is what I was hoping to get
>>with DII's Call.invokeOneWay). I don't see any advantage at this point
>>of using DII over the static stub approach, since the benefits of
>>one-way operations are still gained with static stubs, and I have control
>>
>>
>over the WSDL definition.
>
>
>>However, I think that through this exercise a couple points should be
>>
>>
>noted.
>
>
>>Firstly, it's a bit clumsy to have to copy/paste the generated
>>serializer registry code into the DII client, and even worse to have to
>>modify it. It appears as though DII should be enhanced to support this
>>(under the covers), since this isn't documented in the tutorials/books that
>>
>>
>I've read.
>
>
>>Furthermore, the generated code can change from one version to another
>>of JAX-RPC, so having to rely on this hand-edited generated code is
>>probably not a very good long term solution.
>>
>>Again, thank you for spending time investigating this matter.
>>
>>Regards,
>>-- Ryan
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: kathy walsh [mailto:Kathleen.Walsh_at_Sun.COM]
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:51 PM
>>To: 'Ryan LeCompte'
>>Cc: users_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>>Subject: Correct client file
>>
>>Ryan-
>>Here is the correct file-
>>The serializers are the same-
>>
>>Verify that it works in your environment and let me know- kathy
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net