-
1. Re: @WebServiceRef default name
emuckenhuber Jun 24, 2008 3:56 AM (in response to asoldano)Hmm yes, as the serviceRefName is used for jndi binding this could lead to a conflict.
I mean i think decalaringClass / name makes more sense and would avoid this. And as you mentioned that the spec is unclear on this, we maybe should use the default naming like it was in beta4!? -
2. Re: @WebServiceRef default name
asoldano Jun 24, 2008 4:01 AM (in response to asoldano)"emuckenhuber" wrote:
Hmm yes, as the serviceRefName is used for jndi binding this could lead to a conflict.
I mean i think decalaringClass / name makes more sense and would avoid this. And as you mentioned that the spec is unclear on this, we maybe should use the default naming like it was in beta4!?
OK, that's fine with me (using the default name declaringClass / name). -
3. Re: @WebServiceRef default name
emuckenhuber Jun 24, 2008 5:58 AM (in response to asoldano)okay i changed that.
Additionally it is not allowed anymore to define a @WebServiceRef on a Type without specifying the name attribute - as they say:
'For class annotations, there is no default and this must be specified.'
So i think this is ok too ? :) -
4. Re: @WebServiceRef default name
asoldano Jun 24, 2008 6:08 AM (in response to asoldano)OK, I'll give it a try. And, yes, I think it's ok to require the name for @WebServiceRef on a type.
Thank you -
5. Re: @WebServiceRef default name
asoldano Jun 24, 2008 8:20 AM (in response to asoldano)Fix working properly, I've tested it creating a local snapshot of the metadata prj. Waiting the metadata release to solve the issues depending on JBMETA-64.
Thanks