aspose file tools*
The moose likes Web Services Certification (SCDJWS/OCEJWSD) and the fly likes JAX-RPC clients Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Certification » Web Services Certification (SCDJWS/OCEJWSD)
Bookmark "JAX-RPC clients" Watch "JAX-RPC clients" New topic
Author

JAX-RPC clients

Sachet Varma
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 07, 2009
Posts: 39
why is the dynamic proxy considered more portable than DII? In both cases we only use the generic Service class and do not have any port specific stub classes generated.

So why would dynamic porxies be considered more portable than DII?

Any thoughts?
Ivan Krizsan
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 04, 2006
Posts: 2198
    
    1
Hi!
A guess would be that using dynamic proxies requires less coding and thus less to change if/when needed.
Just a guess, though - if you come up with something better, please let me know!
Best wishes!
Sachet Varma
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 07, 2009
Posts: 39
Hi Ivan,

Well , I thought so as well. But then for a dynamic proxy -



this would mean that we would definitely need to know the 'type' of the port class. Hence we lose flexibility there.

Now , for a DII


this would mean that we would have to now only the required QNames from the wsdl description.

Somehow , DII seems to be more flexible since we dont have any 'class type' information being passed.

Thats my reasoning Ivan. Let me know if I have slipped in my reasoning though.
Ivan Krizsan
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 04, 2006
Posts: 2198
    
    1
Hi!
Well, if I were doing Java-first development, I would prefer a dynamic proxy because that way, I would be able to avoid having to look at the WSDL to as large extent as possible.
But: I have my head geared towards JAX-WS, not JAX-RPC, so there may be less, or no, gain in that "world".

I do understand your reasoning and feel there is nothing to object to, but at the same time, there is a side of me that feels that the DII programming model is more low level, having to use the qualified names of ports, operations etc.
Anyway, I still do not have a good answer, but it is an interesting question to discuss. :-)
Best wishes!
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: JAX-RPC clients