Ryan,
JAX-WS does help with versioning slightly in that it uses JAXB for its
databinding. JAXB by default
is permissive when parsing XML instances in that if it sees an element
or an attribute that it was
not expecting, it will not blow up and I believe it saves the
information somewhere so that the
endpoint can get at the data if needed. As for DII, DII has been
replaced with a much more
powerful Dispatch interface in JAX-WS. With the Dispatch interface you
can have access
to the entire MESSAGE or just the PAYLOAD using a Source object. You
can also use the
Dispatch interface with JAXB objects. There is also a server side
equivalent of the Dispatch
interface called Provider. You can download the JAX-WS 2.0 PFD,
JavaDocs and API sources
at:
https://jax-rpc.dev.java.net/jax-ws/spec-download.html. You can
dowload the week RI bundle
at:
https://jax-rpc.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectDocumentList?folderID=1182&expandFolder=1182&folderID=0
Ryan LeCompte wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> I know that currently JAX-RPC doesn't really provide any assistance
> with the concept of versioning web services. One of the issues that
> we've had to deal with is maintaining multiple versions of web
> services (ultimately multiple versions of WSDL's). Since the current
> version of DII in JAX-RPC doesn't work well with custom data types,
> we've gone with a static stub approach for our web services. When we
> version our web services, we end up having different versions of the
> generated static stubs and related files. It is fairly cumbersome to
> deal with different versions of these generated artifacts. I was
> wondering if the latest version of JAX-RPC (JAX-WS) has any plans to
> specifically address the versioning problem with web services? Also,
> has DII been enhanced in JAX-WS so that it can deal with complex data
> types? It seems like if we could use the DII approach, we wouldn't
> have to deal with any versioned generated artifacts, correct? Is there
> any main benefit of upgrading to JAX-WS when it's available? Any
> advice is appreciated.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan
--
- Doug