Quoting Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> WSDL style (rpc vs document) has no impact on whether or not you can > map multiple binding ports to a single URL. That's more likely to be a > function of your SOAP engine rather than the design of your service. > > There are a number of differences between the way you define an > rpc/lit WSDL versus a doc/lit WSDL, but "wrapped" doc/lit and rpc/lit > look almost identical on the wire. You may see differences in > namespaces and in the response element name. In doc/lit, the schema > explicitly specifies the name of the response element and what > namespaces must be used for the top-level element and all local > elements. In rpc/lit, the top-level element within the <soap:Body> is > in the namespace specified by the namespace attribute in the > <wsdlsoap:body> definition in the <wsdl:binding>, and the parameter > elements are never namespace qualified. Also, in rpc/lit the SOAP > engine autogenerates the name of the response element, and its name is > not significant. > > When using doc/lit, you define the full schema of the message payload > by defining the <xsd:element> structure of the contents of the > <soap:Body>. There can be at most one top-level element within the > <soap:Body>, therefore this element must contain all message > parameters. I'm confused by this last sentence. I don't see in the WSDL1.1 spec from w3c that a doc/lit body can have only one child element, "If the operation style is document there are no additional wrappers, and the message parts appear directly under the SOAP Body element." In practice, my services that had more than one part, produced messages that had more than one child element in the soapenv:body. I did encounter that the WS-I Basic Profile adds the restriction that doc/lit messages can have only one part. > The <wsdl:message> definition must specify at most one > body part (although it may contain additional header or fault parts), > and that body part must reference the <xsd:element> definition. For > example, for an operation "foobar" with two input parameters "foo" and > "bar", the <wsdl:message> definition would look like this: > > <wsdl:message name="foobarRequest"> > <wsdl:part name="body" element="ns1:foobar"/> > </wsdl:message> > > And the ns1:foobar element definition would look something like this: > > <xsd:element name="foobar"> > <xsd:complexType> > <xsd:sequence> > <xsd:element name="foo" type="xsd:string"/> > <xsd:element name="bar" type="xsd:string"/> > </xsd:sequence> > </xsd:complexType> > </xsd:element> > > When using wrapped doc/lit, the top-level element name must be the > same as the operation name (in this case, "foobar"). When using > unwrapped doc/lit, the top-level element may have any name -- but you > still must define all input information as local elements within the > top-level element. > > When using rpc/lit, you do not define the full schema of the message > payload. Instead you only define the types of your input parameters. > At runtime, the SOAP engine autogenerates the message element > structure. As with doc/lit, the <soap:Body> may contain at most one > top-level element, but in this case, the SOAP engine generates this > element. It uses the operation name for the element's local name, and > it gets the namespace from the namespace attribute in the > <wsdlsoap:body> definition. The SOAP engine also generates elements > for each parameter type. These elements as unqualified, and the local > name comes from the name attribute in the <wsdl:part> definition. > > In rpc/lit, the <wsdl:message> definition specifies one body part for > each operation parameter. Each <wsd:part> definition must specify the > name of the parameter and the parameter type. If the parameter type is > a complexType, then the type must be defined as a <xsd:complexType> in > the <wsdl:types> section. For the "foobar" example, the <wsdl:message> > definition would look like this: > > <wsdl:message name="foobarRequest"> > <wsdl:part name="foo" type="xsd:string"/> > <wsdl:part name="bar" type="xsd:string"/> > </wsdl:message> > > Anne > > On 7/26/05, Mark Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is the only difference between rpc/lit and doc/lit that the rpc/lit > > style wraps the parameters (parts) in the method (operation) name? Is > > the purpose of the rpc/lit style to use the method wrapper as a way to > > implement the WSDL allowed mapping of multiple binding ports to a single > > URL? > > > > Thanks for any clarification, > > > > Mark > > > > >
