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!
Joined: Jun 07, 2009
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.
Joined: Oct 04, 2006
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. :-)