Continue: How the CastorMarshaller Mapping Look Like

I choose CastorMarshaller over Jaxb2Marshaller because I love what the mapping.xml gives me. It is powerful and flexible even though annotation is very cool.

I also choose not to generate the famous ObjectFactory and POJO from WSDL. Partially because I have to access a rather poor written WSDL. These generated classes bear names of non-sense and confusion. Also partially because I only need to access 20% of the web services. To bundle two sets of web services in one endpoint while knowing each set is designed for different purpose and different consumer is never a practice that I will consider in any near future.

Here is the mapping file. Note I can have any class name mapping to any soap name. And these Java classes are completely POJO.

<?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE mapping PUBLIC "-//EXOLAB/Castor Mapping DTD Version 1.0//EN" "http://castor.codehaus.org/mapping.dtd"> <mapping> <description> Mapping the beans to SOAP web services. </description> <class name="com.mycomp.app2.beans.App2Request"> <map-to xml="soapRequestName" ns-prefix="prefix"/> <field name="fieldNameInPOJO" type="string"> <bind-xml name="elementNameInSOAP" node="element" /> </field> ... </class> <class name="com.mycomp.app2.beans.App2Response"> <map-to xml="soapResponseName" /> <field name="fieldNameInPOJO" type="com.mycomp.app2.beans.App2ResponseWrapper"> <bind-xml name="soapElementName" node="element" /> </field> </class> ... <class name="com.mycomp.app2.beans.App2ResponseWrapper"> <field name="collectionNameInPOJI" type="com.mycomp.app2.beans.App2ResponseEntry" collection="collection"> <bind-xml name="soapEntryName" /> </field> </class> ... </mapping>

According to CastorMarshaller documentation, ns-uri as attribute of the map-to definition promises the namespace declaration. For example, ns-prefix="myPrefix" and ns-uri="myServices" would create a SOAP request of myprefix:soaprequestname xmlns:myprefix="myServices", however, it only creates myprefix:soaprequestname xmlns:myprefix="null". For this, I don't understand why.