Whilst everything Jim said is true, rpc/enc has been around the longest in the current tools and I think interop is pretty good. Doc/lit is the way to go long term, but I think interop today for doc/lit sucks, because every tools supports different subsets of XML Schema.
Cheers Simon -----Original Message----- From: Jim Murphy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: rpc vs. doc/literal interop The issues are basically this: 1. With rpc/enc there are many "valid" ways to say the same thing. If the soap stacks you are interested in have implemented the same subset of these options your all set - kind of. 2. With doc lit there is one way to serialize a message and its described completely by XML Schema so with less optionality there is a better chance of more toolktis getting it right. Jim Melzer, Steven wrote: > can someone please explain to me the interop issues with rpc vs. doc literal. specifically, what datatypes (arrays, nested complex types, etc) will interop. > > i am writing some web services and need to support .net and gsoap clients. rpc seems a lot easier, but not if it won't interop with all these clients. > > thanks, > steve > > Learn more about Paymentech's payment processing services at > www.paymentech.com THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail message and any attachments are proprietary and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not print, distribute, or copy this message or any attachments. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachments from your computer. > .. >
