rpc/literal and wrapped document/literal may look identical on the
wire if you define your doc/literal schema as
elementFormDefault="unqualified". If you define the schema as
elementFormDefault="qualified", then the parameter elements will be
namespace qualified, and the messages won't be quite the same.
The major difference between rpc/literal and wrapped doc/literal is
that with rpc/literal you do not have a schema of the contents of the
<soap:Body>, and with wrapped doc/literal you do have a schema. When
using rpc/literal, you don't define the message element, you only
define the element types, and the SOAP engine automatically builds the
message structure based on the type definitions. You can validate the
message using a schema, but the validation routine must understand the
RPC generation conventions, so it's not quite as straightforward as
when using doc/literal.
Another important difference is that .NET supports wrapped doc/literal
(by default), but it does not support rpc/literal.
rpc/encoded is a significantly different creature than rpc/literal. In
this case, the SOAP engine constructs the message not based on the
schema definition, but based on the SOAP encoding model. Schema
validation typically doesn't work.
Anne
On 5/12/05, Mike Haller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Anne!
>
> I changed operation style to "wrapped" in the server-config.wsdd
> It added an additional element between the parameter and the soap body
> element. It's working fine now! :-)
>
> @All
> But - what's the difference to RPC-style then?
>
> However, the I kept struggling with Axis+Castor+Serializer the last few
> hours and am very tired of all the neat little problems arising on the
> way... my last one was a case-sensitivity problem. I had elements in my
> schema with lower-case names (e.g. <xsd:element name="foobar"
> type="xsd:string"/>) and Castor generated Foobar.class. The web service
> client got an answer with the element "foobar", and so could not find
> the appropriate deserializer. I changed all the names to have the first
> character upper case, and everything works smooth now.
> (I hope this is the right way to do this)
>
> regards
> MIke
>
> Anne Thomas Manes schrieb:
> > If you're using document/literal, then you won't get an operation name
> > unless you define one. I sugesst you use the document/literal wrapped
> > convention, in which you wrap your input parameter with an element
> > that has the same name as your operation.
> >
> > Anne
> >
> > On 5/12/05, Mike Haller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I changed a lot of WSDL and WSDD stuff, so now I get
> >>
> >><soapenv:Body>
> >> <myparameter xsi:nil="true" xmlns=""/>
> >></soapenv:Body>
> >>
> >>still missing the operation name itself.
> >>The client send the wrong SOAP request. Where do I have to tell the
> >>client (generated with wsdl2java) that he needs to include the operation
> >>name?
> >>
> >>I think it should be something like this:
> >>
> >><soapenv:Body>
> >> <myOperation>
> >> <myParameter xsi:nil="true" xmlns=""/>
> >> </myOperation>
> >></soapenv:Body>
> >>
> >>
> >>Mike Haller schrieb:
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>i've got the following exception:
> >>>
> >>>--------------------------------
> >>>AxisFault
> >>> faultCode: {http://xml.apache.org/axis/}Client
> >>> faultSubcode:
> >>> faultString: No such operation 'in0'
> >>> faultActor:
> >>> faultNode:
> >>> faultDetail:
> >>> {http://xml.apache.org/axis/}stackTrace:No such operation 'in0'
> >>> at
> >>>org.apache.axis.providers.java.RPCProvider.processMessage(RPCProvider.java:179)
> >>>
> >>> at
> >>>org.apache.axis.providers.java.JavaProvider.invoke(JavaProvider.java:319)
> >>>...
> >>>--------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>However, the SOAP request seems to look like this (the output comes from
> >>>one custom handler):
> >>>
> >>>--------------------------------
> >>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> >>><soapenv:Envelope
> >>>xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/";
> >>>xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
> >>>xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";><soapenv:Body>
> >>><in0 xsi:nil="true" xmlns="myns1"/></soapenv:Body></soapenv:Envelope>
> >>>--------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>The output of msgContext.getOperationDesc() returns the correct method
> >>>name, which is completely missing in the above soap message. I'm
> >>>wondering where the problem lies and can't find it.
> >>>
> >>>Perhaps someone can direct me into the right direction?
> >>>
> >>>regards
> >>>MIke
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
