Is the idea of wsdl2java (aegis) really useful?

[bmargulies]

I'm wondering why anyone would want this. If the user is going to run a
code generator, what's wrong with JAXB? The virtue of Aegis is to avoid
an infestation of snails (@) in existing code. Once you are firing up a
generator, it's new code.

 

I note that Aegis has some not-very-documented capabilities, and I
wonder if some of them are superior to JAXB in some way.

 

Do we ever post some sort of [POLL] to the user list asking 'who would
use this feature' questions?

 

[dkulp]

I had this conversation with Dan D. before and the thoughts were pretty
much exactly the same.   If you are generating java code from schema,
you should use the "standard" JAXB stuff since that supports more of the
schema types than Aegis does.    Aegis is primarily targeted for the
Java first case.   Having java -> wsdl tools for it makes sense.  
However, the wsdl -> java stuff makes less sense.

Dan


On Friday 21 September 2007, Benson Margulies wrote:

> I'm wondering why anyone would want this. If the user is going to run
> a code generator, what's wrong with JAXB? The virtue of Aegis is to
> avoid an infestation of snails (@) in existing code. Once you are
> firing up a generator, it's new code.
>
>
>
> I note that Aegis has some not-very-documented capabilities, and I
> wonder if some of them are superior to JAXB in some way.
>
>
>
> Do we ever post some sort of [POLL] to the user list asking 'who would
> use this feature' questions?

--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@...
http://www.dankulp.com/blog

[Dan Diephouse-2]

Yeah, I think its definitely a waste of time to do an Aegis schema->java. We would gain absolutely no benefit from it as far as I can tell :-)

- Dan

Daniel Kulp wrote:

I had this conversation with Dan D. before and the thoughts were pretty 
much exactly the same.   If you are generating java code from schema, 
you should use the "standard" JAXB stuff since that supports more of the 
schema types than Aegis does.    Aegis is primarily targeted for the 
Java first case.   Having java -> wsdl tools for it makes sense.   
However, the wsdl -> java stuff makes less sense.

Dan


On Friday 21 September 2007, Benson Margulies wrote:
  

I'm wondering why anyone would want this. If the user is going to run
a code generator, what's wrong with JAXB? The virtue of Aegis is to
avoid an infestation of snails (@) in existing code. Once you are
firing up a generator, it's new code.



I note that Aegis has some not-very-documented capabilities, and I
wonder if some of them are superior to JAXB in some way.



Do we ever post some sort of [POLL] to the user list asking 'who would
use this feature' questions?
    

[bmargulies]

I trust that our colleagues on the far side of the Pacific are reading
this thread and will chime in if they disagree, as they were the ones
who asked me if I intended to proceed to the 'other direction,' I think.

 

________________________________

From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan.diephouse@...]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 4:14 PM
To: cxf-dev@...
Subject: Re: Is the idea of wsdl2java (aegis) really useful?

 

Yeah, I think its definitely a waste of time to do an Aegis
schema->java. We would gain absolutely no benefit from it as far as I
can tell :-)

- Dan

Daniel Kulp wrote:

I had this conversation with Dan D. before and the thoughts were pretty
much exactly the same.   If you are generating java code from schema,
you should use the "standard" JAXB stuff since that supports more of the

schema types than Aegis does.    Aegis is primarily targeted for the
Java first case.   Having java -> wsdl tools for it makes sense.  
However, the wsdl -> java stuff makes less sense.
 
Dan
 
 
On Friday 21 September 2007, Benson Margulies wrote:
 

        I'm wondering why anyone would want this. If the user is going
to run
        a code generator, what's wrong with JAXB? The virtue of Aegis is
to
        avoid an infestation of snails (@) in existing code. Once you
are
        firing up a generator, it's new code.
         
         
         
        I note that Aegis has some not-very-documented capabilities, and
I
        wonder if some of them are superior to JAXB in some way.
         
         
         
        Do we ever post some sort of [POLL] to the user list asking 'who
would
        use this feature' questions?
           

 
 
 
 






--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

[Jim Ma-3]

Hi Benson ,

As far as I can see , aegis data binding is complementary to JAXB  
whether from java-> wsdl or
wsdl-> java direction .

I have not dug into aegis data binding code to find out if it can do the
following things ,but i think
having these feature in wsdl2java  makes sense :
1. Generating simple code-first-liked  java class that easy to understand.
2. Generating java.util.Data type without add a XmlTypAdaptor
customization to map xsd:dateto java.util.Date
   and other thing we need to use jaxb customization to map a shcema
type to a common jdk class.
And also we can use aegis data binding in wsdl first direction as it's a
faster and  StAX based data binding .

Since there are  some data types  that aegis does not support ,  maybe
we can add this support  in wsdl2java
later.

Regards

Jim




Benson Margulies wrote:

> I trust that our colleagues on the far side of the Pacific are reading
> this thread and will chime in if they disagree, as they were the ones
> who asked me if I intended to proceed to the 'other direction,' I think.
>
>  
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan.diephouse@...]
> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 4:14 PM
> To: cxf-dev@...
> Subject: Re: Is the idea of wsdl2java (aegis) really useful?
>
>  
>
> Yeah, I think its definitely a waste of time to do an Aegis
> schema->java. We would gain absolutely no benefit from it as far as I
> can tell :-)
>
> - Dan
>
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> I had this conversation with Dan D. before and the thoughts were pretty
> much exactly the same.   If you are generating java code from schema,
> you should use the "standard" JAXB stuff since that supports more of the
>
> schema types than Aegis does.    Aegis is primarily targeted for the
> Java first case.   Having java -> wsdl tools for it makes sense.  
> However, the wsdl -> java stuff makes less sense.
>  
> Dan
>  
>  
> On Friday 21 September 2007, Benson Margulies wrote:
>  
>
> I'm wondering why anyone would want this. If the user is going
> to run
> a code generator, what's wrong with JAXB? The virtue of Aegis is
> to
> avoid an infestation of snails (@) in existing code. Once you
> are
> firing up a generator, it's new code.
>
>
>
> I note that Aegis has some not-very-documented capabilities, and
> I
> wonder if some of them are superior to JAXB in some way.
>
>
>
> Do we ever post some sort of [POLL] to the user list asking 'who
> would
> use this feature' questions?
>    
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  

[James Mao]

Yep, I agreed, make more sense from java to wsdl than from wsdl to java.

James

> Yeah, I think its definitely a waste of time to do an Aegis
> schema->java. We would gain absolutely no benefit from it as far as I
> can tell :-)
>
> - Dan
>
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
>> I had this conversation with Dan D. before and the thoughts were pretty
>> much exactly the same.   If you are generating java code from schema,
>> you should use the "standard" JAXB stuff since that supports more of the
>> schema types than Aegis does.    Aegis is primarily targeted for the
>> Java first case.   Having java -> wsdl tools for it makes sense.  
>> However, the wsdl -> java stuff makes less sense.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On Friday 21 September 2007, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>  
>>> I'm wondering why anyone would want this. If the user is going to run
>>> a code generator, what's wrong with JAXB? The virtue of Aegis is to
>>> avoid an infestation of snails (@) in existing code. Once you are
>>> firing up a generator, it's new code.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I note that Aegis has some not-very-documented capabilities, and I
>>> wonder if some of them are superior to JAXB in some way.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do we ever post some sort of [POLL] to the user list asking 'who would
>>> use this feature' questions?
>>>    
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> MuleSource
> http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

[bmargulies]

Jim,

I can see your point. On the other hand, unless xjc can be coopted,
wsdl->aegis will be a really big project. The doc I've found on xjc is
really uninformative, so I have not been able to convince myself that it
could be persuaded to write additional files. I suppose that if it would
write additional comments we could post-process.

I have a strategy in mind if we decide to go here.

Step 1 is to define Aegis as being complementary to JAXB instead of
completely parallel.

Then, step 2 is to implement ->aegis by concentrating on the cases you
cite with real value, instead of a complete recreation of xjc.

--benson

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Ma [mailto:ema@...]
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 11:50 PM
> To: cxf-dev@...
> Subject: Re: Is the idea of wsdl2java (aegis) really useful?
>
> Hi Benson ,
>
> As far as I can see , aegis data binding is complementary to JAXB
> whether from java-> wsdl or
> wsdl-> java direction .
>
> I have not dug into aegis data binding code to find out if it can do

the
> following things ,but i think
> having these feature in wsdl2java  makes sense :
> 1. Generating simple code-first-liked  java class that easy to
understand.
> 2. Generating java.util.Data type without add a XmlTypAdaptor
> customization to map xsd:dateto java.util.Date
>    and other thing we need to use jaxb customization to map a shcema
> type to a common jdk class.
> And also we can use aegis data binding in wsdl first direction as it's
a

> faster and  StAX based data binding .
>
> Since there are  some data types  that aegis does not support ,  maybe
> we can add this support  in wsdl2java
> later.
>
> Regards
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> Benson Margulies wrote:
> > I trust that our colleagues on the far side of the Pacific are

reading
> > this thread and will chime in if they disagree, as they were the
ones
> > who asked me if I intended to proceed to the 'other direction,' I
think.

> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan.diephouse@...]
> > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 4:14 PM
> > To: cxf-dev@...
> > Subject: Re: Is the idea of wsdl2java (aegis) really useful?
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah, I think its definitely a waste of time to do an Aegis
> > schema->java. We would gain absolutely no benefit from it as far as

I
> > can tell :-)
> >
> > - Dan
> >
> > Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >
> > I had this conversation with Dan D. before and the thoughts were
pretty
> > much exactly the same.   If you are generating java code from
schema,
> > you should use the "standard" JAXB stuff since that supports more of
the

> >
> > schema types than Aegis does.    Aegis is primarily targeted for the
> > Java first case.   Having java -> wsdl tools for it makes sense.
> > However, the wsdl -> java stuff makes less sense.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > On Friday 21 September 2007, Benson Margulies wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm wondering why anyone would want this. If the user is going
> > to run
> > a code generator, what's wrong with JAXB? The virtue of Aegis is
> > to
> > avoid an infestation of snails (@) in existing code. Once you
> > are
> > firing up a generator, it's new code.
> >
> >
> >
> > I note that Aegis has some not-very-documented capabilities, and
> > I
> > wonder if some of them are superior to JAXB in some way.
> >
> >
> >
> > Do we ever post some sort of [POLL] to the user list asking 'who
> > would
> > use this feature' questions?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >