Samisa and John (and others), I read this article for Anne Thomas Manes found here: http://atmanes.blogspot.com/2005/03/wrapped-documentliteral-convention.html and it REALLY helped me understand the basics. Also I read the WSDL spec 1.1 sections 3.3 soap:binding, section 3.4 soap:operation, section 3.5 soap:body.
I'm going to share with you what I THINKING I UNDERSTOOD from these readings (correct me if I'm wrong): 1- Wrapped is a form of document/literal. It must follow the rules described by Anne's article. Most important ones is: ONE body part in input/output message, soap:binding should specify style="document" and soap:body must specify use="literal" 2- Wrapped and unWrapped basically specify how the soap should look like to that both client and server know how to parse/deserialize it. 3- From a WSDL2Ws tool perspective, this is a server-side thing ONLY and is useful when you have your webservice implemented (in java or c++) and you want to generate the WSDL file for it. You tell the tool how you want it generate the WSDL for you, wrapped (doc/lit) or unwrapped (rpc/enc). Once the services is generated in either styles, it will expect the soap to conform to the style rules so that it can parse it. I guess the tool should validate if this option is used with server-side and outputs a warning if otherwise. 4- From a client side perspective, which what I was doing trying to generate the stubs, wrapped/unwrapped options are meaningless because the client STARTS with a WSDL document and it HAS to follow the rules in that document. If the services expects wrappped soap and specifies that explicitly in the WSDL and the client ["force" things for example by generating their own soap and] sends unwrapped soap, I expect parsing/deserialization problems to occur on the server side. So, a simple printed warning is good enough at least to alert the user that's they're trying to do something illogical. Hope that clarifies things and if you thing there is something I miss interpreted, please let me know as we're all trying to understand this! --- John Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I remember from when I looked into this - > unwrapped is practically not > implemented (as can be seen) I was going to remove > this option from > WSDL2Ws > > > > > > Samisa Abeysinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 20/05/2005 12:54 > Please respond to > "Apache AXIS C Developers List" > > > To > Apache AXIS C Developers List > <[email protected]> > cc > > Subject > Re: WSDL2Ws tool and wrapped vs nonwrapped > > > > > > > This feature, though implemented some time back, is > not well tested. > Unfortunately, we have very little documentation on > this. > > If any original authers are out there, please help > here. Else one would > have to have a look into the WSDL2Ws tool and > establish what is > happening here. > > As per the command line help, wrapped is the default > - hence I assume > wrapped is working properly. > > Thanks, > Samisa... > > On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 19:21, Ahab Abouzour wrote: > > I've ran the tool with both -wwrapped and > -wnonwrapped > > switches but didn't see any difference in the code > > that is generated. I used base.wsdl for that. > After > > the files were generated I Windiff'd both > directories > > only to find they're identical. > > > > Am I using this switch in the wrong way? and can > > comeone please breifly explain(or point me to > reading > > resource) of the difference between the two. I'm > > guessing the generated SOAP should be different (I > > would like to see an example of that if possible). > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Yahoo! Mail Mobile > > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your > mobile phone. > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > -- > Samisa Abeysinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Virtusa Corporation > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
