On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 11:57 +0600, Ajith Ranabahu wrote: > Hi, > Yep, I will Chathura :) > Support for rpc/encoded is somewhat tricky, trickiest part being > supporting all the SOAPenc rules. Our current consensus is to NOT > support the whole set of encoding rules. > However 90% of the time the rpc/encoded WSDL's only contain simple > encodiing rules which closely match with the rpc/literal rules. What > we plan to do is to process the rpc/encoded WSDL as a rpc/lit WSDL if > the rpc/encoded WSDL does not utilize any obscure soap encoding rules > (such as SOAPenc array), which we believe would work in the 90% case.
+1 .. IIRC doing that requires no work except to do the tests. Is that correct? If so please indicate an ETA .. Here's the general explanation for everyone: SOAP 1.1 defined SOAP Encoding based on an abstract type model. In WSDL 1.1, we mapped the abstract type model of XML Schema to that. However, there's a missing link .. there's no spec which describes how to take arbitrary XML Schemas and convert them into SOAP Encoding. So, practice has been that people use "simple shaped" schemas: ones that use children elements only and no attributes etc.. If only those things are used, then the mapping from a SOAP-Enc'ed schema to a doc/lit schema is a no-op, *as long as* wsdl:arrayType is not used. That stuff is an abomination in my mind as it put WSDL in the schema space. So, if you don't use wsdl:arrayType then the basically treating style=encoded as if it was style=literal (when encodingStyle=soap-enc) will work just fine. Sanjiva.
