in fact, there are quite a lot of articels, which insists not to use
rpc/encoded and hopefully the few web services out there which are still
using rpc/encoded will change it. this is very old style but
unfurtunatelly axis 1.2 and i think also axis 1.3 has it set as default.
but axis2 goes in the right direction and comes with a much faster
engine for doc/literal. :)
besides the basic profile of the ws-i (http://www.ws-i.org/) insists on
using doc/literal, which results in fewer bytes to transmit, because the
types of the values are not transmitted! and the ugly array encoding in
the soap envelope with multi-refs will belong to the past. :)
Alejandro Ariel de Lio schrieb:
I think that the thing is that when you do soap rpc literal messages
you may find it difficult to validate messages in deserializing time.
That's because you use the name of the wsdl message element and not
the name of the xsd element itself.
-----Mensaje original-----
*De:* Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Enviado el:* viernes, 03 de febrero de 2006 4:08
*Para:* axis-user@ws.apache.org
*Asunto:* Re: Document Literal vs Document Wrapped vs RPC Encoding
Quite a few SOAP engines don't support rpc/literal, therefore
doc/literal (wrapped or unwrapped) is a better idea than
rpc/literal. I generally recommend using wrapped doc/literal for
best interop and easiest development and configuration. Note that
.NET supports wrapped doc/literal by default.
Anne
On 2/2/06, *Cyrille Le Clerc* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
WS-I Basic Profile, the reference for SOAP interoperability,
says it
prefers "literal" rather than "encoded" :
Extract : "As a result, the Profile prefers the use of literal,
non-encoded XML."
Chapter : "4.1.7 SOAP encodingStyle Attribute"
URL :
http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html#refinement16448072
<http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html#refinement16448072>
Unfortunately, I did not find in this spec any clear statement
saying
that "document" (in a wrapped style) is preferred to "rpc".
However, you will find many articles that say "document" is
preferred to "rpc".
Cyrille
--
Cyrille Le Clerc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html
On 2/2/06, Jyotishman Pathak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> Dov,
>
> I found this article [1] from IBM to be quite useful. At
the same time, I am interested in knowing more about your
investigation.
>
> Thanks,
> - Jyoti
>
> [1]
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-whichwsdl/?ca=dgr-devx-WebServicesMVP03
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/2/06, Balaji D L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Can you share your analyse with us ??
> > It will be very useful.
> > Regards
> > Balaji
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Dov Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> > To: axis-user@ws.apache.org <mailto:axis-user@ws.apache.org>
> > Sent: 02 February 2006 14:21:37
> > Subject: Document Literal vs Document Wrapped vs RPC Encoding
> >
> > I have done a bunch of investigating to determine the
differences/benefits/limitations of the 3 styles of WSDL
generation. In general it seems that the preferred version is
Document Literal. Are there any other opinions as to the most
popular version?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dov Rosenberg
> > Inquira Inc
> > 370 Centerpointe Circle, ste 1178
> > Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
> > (407) 339-1177 x 102
> > (407) 339-6704 (fax)
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > AOL IM: dovrosenberg
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jyotishman Pathak
> WWW: http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~jpathak
<http://www.cs.iastate.edu/%7Ejpathak>
