Thanks Dennis!
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Dennis Sosnoski <d...@sosnoski.com> wrote: > Hi Ellecer, > > Schema is a mish-mash of features, many of which do not make any sense. > xs:hexBinary is pretty much in this category. It's always going to be > bulkier than xs:base64Binary, and has no compensating advantages. Just > ignore it, and always use xs:base64Binary - that way, in cases where MTOM is > not active you'll still have a reasonably compact format. > > - Dennis > > -- > Dennis M. Sosnoski > Java XML and Web Services > Axis2 Training and Consulting > http://www.sosnoski.com - http://www.sosnoski.co.nz > Seattle, WA +1-425-939-0576 - Wellington, NZ +64-4-298-6117 > > > > Ellecer Valencia wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I've been working on a web service that will be receiving binary >> files, and I've been researching MTOM. Most of the documents I've seen >> state that in the WSDL, your binary field should be of type >> xs:base64Binary or xs:hexBinary, and that either of these two will >> result in a byte[] when the proxy classes are generated. >> >> What is still unclear to me is when you should use hexBinary over >> base64Binary. Most sample code I've seen actually uses hex64Binary. In >> what scenarios should you use one over the other? >> >> >> thanks, >> >> Ellecer >> >