Re: Complex types: do the reverse ?

Yes, up to practical issues, this is a reasonable way to proceed.  The 
practical issues include:
1.  Even if you are trafficking in DOMs, the WSIF provider (such as 
Axis) may require you to specify trivial serializer/deserializer pairs.
2.  This approach is best suited for doc/lit web services where all the 
parameters are complex and the XML contains no special encoded forms.  
In this case, what I described in previous emails boils down 
approximately to trafficking in DOMs.
3.  For rpc/encoded web services, particularly those that use 
soap-encoded arrays and structures, the XML must be specially 
interpreted/manipulated to produce the object structure that was 
intended.  (For example, sparse arrays may be encoded.)
4.  When web service parameters are XSD simple types, such as integers, 
dateTimes, etc., some serialization/deserialization must be provided to 
convert between xml and java.  Note also that derived simple types, such 
as limited-range integers must also be recognized and processed 
appropriately.

Jeff

Jacques-Olivier Goussard wrote:

>Hi all
>With all the discussions around complex types support
>in WSIF, I was wondering if really WSIF approach to it
>was the one that it should take.
>If really WSIF aims at representing all sorts of services
>through the WSDL description, then it appears to me
>that all types should be instances of the XSD types. 
>In this approach, a SOAP-based service would simply
>take and return XML DOMs (or other representation) - thus
>addressing the complex type issue in the most flexible
>way. A java-based service would internaly populate the
>needed beans from it's knowledge of the API and the XSD.
>So no type mapping would be necessary in the java-binding
>WSDL description. 
>And the client side would not need any knowledge of
>the underlying implementation - currently a java-binding user
>must know if the method takes a int[] or Integer[] for
>example, breaking the design IMHO.
>It's a much easier approach, because Java to XML binding
>is a much simpler problem than XML to java - but that's a 90 
>degres change :)
>      /jog
>
>
>  
>