Absolutely. I tried deploying the service with the same name but in
rpc/encoded mode as well as document/literal - didn't work. In retrospect,
duh! only the last deployment took effect. As a result, I deploy the same
service under two different names - MySvcRpcEnc and MySvcDocLit - reflecting
the two flavours.
Of course, I want only one server-side implementation. Therefore, I use the
same java interface, MySvc, to generate the two WSDLs - MySvcRpcEnc.wsdl and
MySvcDocLit.wsdl. Then, I use wsdl2java on each wsdl to generate server-side
skeletons - MySvc{RpcEnc,DocLit}SoapBindingImpl.java. Inside these impl
files, I redirect the call to my single implementation, MySvcImpl.java. I
also have two deploy.wsdds with different names for the service - I deploy
both without conflict.
Do I see the need to deploy both flavours? Yes. First, my employers want it
so, which trumps pretty much everything else. Second, the rpc/encoded is our
legacy flavour, so we have to continue to support it; the document/literal
version accedes to the growing trend.
Anand
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Sagar Pidaparthi wrote:
: Hi,
:
: Do you have or use some naming convention to differentiate between
: different types(RPC/Document) of services. If you want deploy the same
: service as Document/RPC/Wrapped etc do you use some kind of convention?
:
: Do you see the need to deploy the same service in different modes to
: enable different groups of service users?
:
: Thanks
:
: Sagar
