On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:55:45 +0100, in soap you wrote: >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"?
I believe that the IONA folks are supporting this as well. I agree with you that keying off the part name is a pretty flaky approach. >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? section 5 provides a standard serialization for graphs, which XML schema does not. At this point, its the only useful thing in section 5. Cheers Simon www.pocketsoap.com
