Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [LIKELY JUNK]RE: [wtp-incubator-dev] Should we drop the POJO web service type in the Web Services wizard?

Hi Shane,

 

I would like to share some points we had in mind while we were developing the JAX-WS model tools toolset within SAP.

 

A web service always has an endpoint interface (this is the java representation of the wsdl porttype). It does not matter whether this interface exists as java artifact (ISomething.java) or not.

WS DOM tools work with the JSR-181 annotations and the endpoint interface is specified via the “endpointInterface” parameter of the @WebService annotation. Here is what JSR-181, section 4.1.1, states about this parameter (I am not copy-pasting directly the PDF content due to formatting reasons):

 

Member-Value

Meaning

Default

endpointInterface

The complete name of the service endpoint

interface defining the service’s abstract Web

Service contract. This annotation allows the

developer to separate the interface contract

from the implementation. If this annotation is

present, the service endpoint interface is used

to determine the abstract WSDL contract

(portType and bindings). The service endpoint

interface MAY include JSR-181 annotations to

customize the mapping from Java to WSDL.

The service implementation bean MAY

implement the service endpoint interface, but

is not REQUIRED to do so.

Not allowed on interfaces.

None – the Web

Service contract is

generated from

annotations on the

service

implementation

bean. If a service

endpoint interface

is required by the

target

environment, it

will be generated

into an

implementationdefined

package

with an

implementationdefined

name.

 

 

As you can see, the “endpointInterface” is optional, but the web service after all always does have a porttype (and endpoint interface). Also note that if the “endpointInterface” is specified, the implementation class is not required to implement the SEI via the “implements” java keyword

The WS DOM tools consider this and recognize two types of endpoint interfaces – explicit (if the “endpointInterface” parameter is available) and implicit (when the “endpointInterface” is missing)

 

The implementation of the wizard’s web service runtime defines a dedicated page where the user has three service endpoint interfaces (SEI) strategies:

  1. Do not use explicit SEI (i.e. the “endpointInteface” parameter of the @WebService annotation will not be set)
  2. Use an existing SEI (the user is able to browse for existing java interface)
  3. Generate a new SEI out of the methods which the user enabled for the web service

    4. The wizard always starts with the implementation class. Starting from the endpoint interface is not supported.

     

    I am not convinced that it makes much sense to start a bottom-up web service wizard from an interface. The reason is that the development process (normally) starts with writing the implementation class and then “exposing” the implementation as web service. I cannot imagine that a developer would write the class, navigate to the interface, start the wizard on the interface and browse back to the implementation class… It would be simply lots of clicking J

     

    Regards, Danail

     

     

    From: wtp-incubator-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-incubator-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of shane clarke
    Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:38 PM
    To: wtp-incubator-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
    Subject: [LIKELY JUNK]RE: [wtp-incubator-dev] Should we drop the POJO web service type in the Web Services wizard?

 

Hi Danail,

It's a good question.

The idea was to allow the user to start from an SEI and configure the implementation they wished to use on the 2nd page of the wizard. The wizard would
then update the implementation to point to the SEI before input to CXF java2ws.

If no implementation is selected it's possible to get CXF to generate a skeleton implementation for you that you would have to fill in post wizard finish.

It does need some work. The implementation selection is currently restricted to the type hierarchy but it's possible to remove that restriction and i'll open a bug for that.

The wizard ties up all the pieces into a configuration file.

Anyone think that isn't an acceptable scenario / use case to fit into the Web Services wizard?

Shane

With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos.

Back to the top