I've been trying to find a good, general reference between the four different 
types of WebServices.

RPC/encoded
RPC/literal
Document/encoded
Document/literal

Please help in educating the populace with hopefully a good general 
understanding.

My understandings to date, with (?) in assumption areas:

RPC/Encoded:
pros:
This is the easiest to use for simple WebServices.  Most tools automatically 
generate the basic Java2Webservice (WSDL) without too much problem. No special 
mapping.xml file is needed(?).  No special custom-client programming needed.
cons:
Does not handle complex/custom java objects, arrays, etc very well at all. Not 
accepted for general practice, not supported for WS Basic Profile.

RPC/Literal:
pros:
Most accepted type for webservices.  No special client programming needed (i.e. 
still uses standard web-service types).
cons:
Usually requires a mapping.xml file, and may require additional programming for 
webservice understanding of complex types.

Document/Literal & Encoding:
I do not have much experience, but my understanding this requires custom 
programming on both the server and the client side.   For each document 
webservice, the client (whether java or .net), you have to custom-write the 
de-marshalling side of the webservice.

Please let me know if I'm on the right track, any corrections, and hopefully 
some better references. :-)

-D

View the original post : 
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3872567#3872567

Reply to the post : 
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3872567


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
JBoss-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user

Reply via email to