Hi, as you know there is a thing called SOAP Encoding (also known as SOAP Section 5 Encoding in SOAP 1.1, now an optional addendum in SOAP 1.2 but still present).
To me, SOAP Encoding is primarily an approach to support the serialization of object graphs which are not strictly hierarchical, i. e. identity of objects being referenced by multiple other objects will be preserved. However, SOAP Encoding has some flaws and created issues in the interoperability of web services. This is, to my understanding, mainly due to its serialization not being well founded on an XML schema. Tim Ewald has analyzed this problem in an article on http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995710.aspx He also devised a way out of the misery in his bottom line which goes as follows: ,Many people, myself included, believe that a shift away from SOAP encoding is inevitable. The W3C XML Protocol Working Group's current draft of the SOAP 1.2 specification makes support for SOAP encoding optional (that is, a toolkit can claim SOAP 1.2 compliance without supporting SOAP encoding), the WS-I Basic Profile Working Group's current draft of its interoperability guidelines disallows the use of SOAP encoding with SOAP 1.1, and the W3C Web Service Description Working Group chose to drop support for encoding from their latest working draft of the WSDL 1.2 specification. It will take some time for toolkits to reflect these changes, first we have to settle on a schema-friendly way to serialize graphs. Then toolkits have to be updated. This will take some time, but it is worth the wait. In the end, the Web service stack will be significantly easier to implement and use.' Tim's article dates back to 2002. Now, four years later I cannot see the issue being resolved. Instead, all I can perceive almost everywhere in web service publications is the recommendation to stay away from SOAP Encoding (which is what the Basic Profile demands). However, I wonder if this means developers are left to their own proprietary devices if they have to preserve object graphs. What do you think about this or what is it that I have missed in this issue that makes me think there is a gap that needs to adressed? Regards, Matthias --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
