Stu, Thanks for the reply.
Someone on this forum mentioned that doc/literal web services actually scale better than RPC/encoded services. Is this true? I dont see you could make that generic of a statement given all of the implementations of web service toolkits out there... -----Original Message----- From: Stu Halloway (DevelopMentor) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Best practices question Hi Jim, << It does seem to complicate the 'set up' of the call from the client side when you use doc/literal. Doesn't the client have to manually construct the XML message to be passed to the server in the case of a doc/literal service call (when the xsd types required by the doc/literal service are complex)? >> There is no reason that doc/literal implementations need to be more complex to program against than rpc/* implementations. This may be true in Axis today, but that is more a statement about Axis than about doc vs. rpc. If you look at the WSDL, doc/literal is actually simpler than rpc/encoded. The types are completely specified by schema, which means that schema is the single source of truth instead of having to combine types/message parts/encoding to figure out what you are looking at. Yasser Shohoud wrote a nice article about doc/literal vs. rpc/literal that you can find at [1] Regards, Stu [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/d nwebsrv/html/rpc_literal.asp Stuart Halloway DevelopMentor Guerrilla Java Web Services June 16! http://www.develop.com/courses/gjws
