Possible RC1 API changes?

[Joshua White]

Arjen,

I would like to suggest some possible API changes to either the DefaultWsdl11Definition or ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefinition classes.

The DefaultWsdl11Definition class feels like the ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefinition class with defaults. If that is the case, would you consider adding some of the convience methods that delegate to the underlying providers to the ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefinition class (For example: setTargetNamespace, setSchema etc.)? This would make configuration much easier.

Also, would you consider making the providers in the ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefinition class protected instead of private? I have implemented my own provider and need to do some additional initialization work in the afterPropertiesSet method. If I extend the current ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefinition class to do this, I have no visibility into the providers (they are not protected and don't have corresponding getters). I would settle for getters.

Your thoughts?

Regards,

Joshua White

[Arjen Poutsma]

Arjen,

I would like to suggest some possible API changes to either the DefaultWsdl11Definition or ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefinition classes.

The DefaultWsdl11Definition class feels like the ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefinition class with defaults. If that is the case, would you consider adding some of the convience methods that delegate to the underlying providers to the ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefinition class (For example: setTargetNamespace, setSchema etc.)? This would make configuration much easier.

Well, the ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefintion is meant for cases where you want to plug in custom providers. Since the providers interfaces don't have these properties, I can't add them to the class. The properties do exist on the providers, however, so you can configure them on those.

Also, would you consider making the providers in the ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefinition class protected instead of private? I have implemented my own provider and need to do some additional initialization work in the afterPropertiesSet method. If I extend the current ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefinition class to do this, I have no visibility into the providers (they are not protected and don't have corresponding getters). I would settle for getters.

Getters it will be, since we generally try to stay clear from protected fields in Spring. See http://jira.springframework.org/browse/SWS-310

[Joshua White]

Excellent, thanks!