Ok, that makes sense. And Axis' "wrapped" style will support nested tags
by creating nested Java objects?
If so, how does it handle attributes that are on tags? Like:
<member type="1">
<name>
<firstname>john</firstname>
<lastname> doe</name>
</name>
<age>24</age>
</member>
I would imagine that the "wrapped" style would create a Member object that
has an age, but also contains a Name object. And then the Name object
contains the firstname and lastname.
But, how would it represent the "type=1" in the java objects? (Assuming
I'm right about how it would represent the nested objects.)
Thank you for your help! Axis is very exciting... I wish I had converted
over sooner.
-Raiden Johnson
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> As a rule of thumb, you should use the Axis "wrapped" style. (Sometimes you
> can't, but the example you cite below is fine.) The "wrapped" generates
> document/literal messages, and it manages the message building process for
> you. Axis automatically maps the XML message to Java objects based on the
> schema of the message. When developing a "wrapped" style service, you should
> start by defining the XML schema of your input and output messages.
>
> Anne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 10:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RPC vs. building your own SOAP messages
>
> Hello,
>
> I am having a hard time grasping when to use RPC calls and when to build
> your own messages. I used to use Apache SOAP, and I used to build my own
> SOAP message via JAXM.
>
> However, I am now trying to upgrade to AXIS, and to make full use of its
> feature set... which seems to have a huge emphasis on using RPC, and
> seems to abstract out message building.
>
> Every guide and tutorial that I have read seems to revolve around RPC, and
> how easy it is to implement in AXIS. I can see the benefits of RPC for
> simple calls (pass in a few arguments, get back a single result... even
> if the result is a complex type). RPC seems great for that.
>
> However, I need to pass much more complex messages, and receive much more
> complex results. Does that mean that RPC is not the best solution for me?
>
> For example, here is a typical message that I will send to a SOAP server:
>
> <soap-env:Envelope
> xmlns:soap-env="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/";>
> <soap-env:Header>
> <t:Transaction xmlns:t="xxs">
> <iden u="user" p="password"/>
> </t:Transaction>
> </soap-env:Header>
> <soap-env:Body>
> <ns1:ProviderTransaction xmlns:ns1="xxs">
> <REQ>
> <action entryDate="20040919">1</action>
> <memberInfo nvid="1234567">
> <externalID>4001775</externalID>
> <name><first>Maggie</first><last>Duke</last></name>
> <companyName/>
> <address>123 Test St.</address>
> <address2/>
> <city>City</city>
> <state>CT</state>
> <country>US</country>
> <postalCode>06524</postalCode>
> <email>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</email>
> <ssn></ssn>
> </memberInfo>
> <orderInfo>
> <effectiveDate>20040928</effectiveDate>
> <items count="2">
> <item><itc>2973</itc><qty>1</qty><pc>Y</pc></item>
> <item><itc>1234</itc><qty>1</qty><pc>Y</pc></item>
> </items>
> </orderInfo>
> </REQ>
> </ns1:ProviderTransaction>
> </soap-env:Body><
> /soap-env:Envelope>
>
>
> and here is a typical response:
>
>
> <SOAP-ENV:Envelope
> xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/";
> SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/";
> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema/";
> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema/instance/";>
> <SOAP-ENV:Header>
> <t:Transaction xmlns:t="xxs" />
> </SOAP-ENV:Header>
> <SOAP-ENV:Body>
> <ns1:ProviderTransaction xmlns:ns1="xxs">
> <RSP>
> <responseNode>
> <nvid new="1">863262802</nvid>
> <orderNumber>9136214</orderNumber>
> <asOrderNumber>961704</asOrderNumber>
> </responseNode>
> </RSP>
> </ns1:ProviderTransaction>
> </SOAP-ENV:Body>
> </SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
>
>
> Are complex SOAP packets like these not appropriate for RPC? It seems to
> me, like you really need to build your own requests, and parse your own
> responses to make something like this work. Am I correct in that?
>
> Thank you,
> -Raiden Johnson
>
