Hi all,
If we consider interoperating with .NET and Axis, IMO doc/literal is
better than rpc/encoding
Mahen
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:25:13 -0700, Nelson Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Whilst everything Jim said is true, rpc/enc has been around the longest
> >in the current tools and I think
>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.
I can second this. In
-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 stac
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 compl
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 t
