Hi Anne, all: Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
SOAP encoding is much more likely to be used in a code-first scenario, but you must make sure that it also works in a WSDL-first scenario.
+1
Regarding one of your questions, you would never see an element defined as follows: <s:element name="TestSoapElement2"><s:complexType> <s:sequence> <s:element name="param1" type="s:string"/> <s:element name="param2" type="soapenc:Array"/> </s:sequence> </s:complexType> </s:element>First off, you would define a named complexType rather than an element. And second, you never define an element simply as soapenc:Array. The ComplexType would look something like this:
If this isn't a top-level element (i.e. if this is an element referenced inside an outermost complexType) it's certainly ok - but your point is well taken. For RPC style you must use the "type" attribute in WSDL 1.1 <part> definitions, not the "element" attribute.
As for soapenc:Array - it's not out-of-spec to use it directly, and we support this in Axis1. It becomes an Object[].
In general, Amila, SOAP array types want to turn into language arrays, not MyCustomArrayClass, just like SOAP doubles want to turn into Doubles/doubles (depending on nillable), not MyDoubleClass.
--Glen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
