Sorry not an answer but more related questions.
I thought the idea of RPC style was to wrap all the requests within
operation elements. Why can't Axis just recognize RPC/literal to do the
same thing instead of relying on proprietary pattern matching of the input
message (to match 'parameters'). I guess what I am saying is that it would
be nicer from an interoperability standpoint if standardized WSDL styles
were used. Or is there anything that can't be done with the RPC/literal
semantics as defined in the spec today that your wrapped model solves
(other than interoperate with .NET ;-) ? Or are there any efforts to
standardize this wrapped model next to rpc/doc to be able to tell clients
how to do the packaging explicitly?
Thanks,
Thomas
At 01:55 PM 4/4/2002 +0100, Tim Blake wrote:
>Tom,
>
>Thanks for the comprehensive reply. The RPC binding for "wrapped" style
>services provided by Axis is excellent, but as expected, I have more
>questions and comments! ;-)
>
> >
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > The "wrapped" style indicates a particular style of doing document/literal
>that emulates RPC. This sounds a bit strange, but the best example of this
>is Microsoft .NET web services. For document style, each message part is an
>element in the request. For a wrapped style service, there is only a single
>message part, and its name is "parameters". This part is defined to be an
>element, who's name is the same as the operation name. This element then
>contains the parameters to the operation; the parameters are wrapped in an
>element.
> >
>
>I already understood why the "wrapped" style was needed, and now understand
>how its use is instigated... Thanks!
>
>Are you aware of any other vendors that use the "wrapped" style? Don't you
>think that using a part name (and the fact that there is only one) as a
>means of discriminating between "document" and "wrapped" is fairly delicate?
>I appreciate that this might be pedantry, but what if I wanted "document",
>not "wrapped" and named the single part "parameters"?
>
>This leads me to a slightly deeper question (which is connected, however
>tenuous the link may seem at first), which has likely been debated before,
>so I apologise if this is ground already covered:
>
>Microsoft obviously use document style for the majority (all?) of there
>services. This means that the data in the SOAP packets which they send is
>untyped on the wire, putting the emphasis on the framework to
>marshall/unmarshall based on the contract (WSDL), whether statically or
>dynamically. I guess the question is, why bother to encode (using SOAP
>section 5 rules)? Surely a combination of document style and XML schema
>(which is also a means of describing serialisation/deserialisation rules for
>XML) is sufficient for all cases?
>
>Thoughts?
>Tim
Thomas Sandholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Globus Project(tm) <http://www.globus.org>
Ph: 630-252-1682, Fax: 630-252-1997
Argonne National Laboratory
