Anne
On 2/3/06, Christian Kloner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
in fact, there are quite a lot of articels, which insists not to use
rpc/encoded and hopefully the few web services out there which are still
using rpc/encoded will change it. this is very old style but
unfurtunatelly axis 1.2 and i think also axis 1.3 has it set as default.
but axis2 goes in the right direction and comes with a much faster
engine for doc/literal. :)
besides the basic profile of the ws-i ( http://www.ws-i.org/) insists on
using doc/literal, which results in fewer bytes to transmit, because the
types of the values are not transmitted! and the ugly array encoding in
the soap envelope with multi-refs will belong to the past. :)
Alejandro Ariel de Lio schrieb:
> I think that the thing is that when you do soap rpc literal messages
> you may find it difficult to validate messages in deserializing time.
> That's because you use the name of the wsdl message element and not
> the name of the xsd element itself.
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> *De:* Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> *Enviado el:* viernes, 03 de febrero de 2006 4:08
> *Para:* [email protected]
> *Asunto:* Re: Document Literal vs Document Wrapped vs RPC Encoding
>
> Quite a few SOAP engines don't support rpc/literal, therefore
> doc/literal (wrapped or unwrapped) is a better idea than
> rpc/literal. I generally recommend using wrapped doc/literal for
> best interop and easiest development and configuration. Note that
> .NET supports wrapped doc/literal by default.
>
> Anne
>
> On 2/2/06, *Cyrille Le Clerc* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> WS-I Basic Profile, the reference for SOAP interoperability,
> says it
> prefers "literal" rather than "encoded" :
> Extract : "As a result, the Profile prefers the use of literal,
> non-encoded XML."
> Chapter : "4.1.7 SOAP encodingStyle Attribute"
> URL :
> http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html#refinement16448072
> < http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html#refinement16448072>
>
> Unfortunately, I did not find in this spec any clear statement
> saying
> that "document" (in a wrapped style) is preferred to "rpc".
> However, you will find many articles that say "document" is
> preferred to "rpc".
>
> Cyrille
>
> --
> Cyrille Le Clerc
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html
>
> On 2/2/06, Jyotishman Pathak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > Dov,
> >
> > I found this article [1] from IBM to be quite useful. At
> the same time, I am interested in knowing more about your
> investigation.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Jyoti
> >
> > [1]
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-whichwsdl/?ca=dgr-devx-WebServicesMVP03
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/2/06, Balaji D L < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you share your analyse with us ??
> > > It will be very useful.
> > > Regards
> > > Balaji
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Dov Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> > > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > > Sent: 02 February 2006 14:21:37
> > > Subject: Document Literal vs Document Wrapped vs RPC Encoding
> > >
> > > I have done a bunch of investigating to determine the
> differences/benefits/limitations of the 3 styles of WSDL
> generation. In general it seems that the preferred version is
> Document Literal. Are there any other opinions as to the most
> popular version?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dov Rosenberg
> > > Inquira Inc
> > > 370 Centerpointe Circle, ste 1178
> > > Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
> > > (407) 339-1177 x 102
> > > (407) 339-6704 (fax)
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > AOL IM: dovrosenberg
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jyotishman Pathak
> > WWW: http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~jpathak
> < http://www.cs.iastate.edu/%7Ejpathak>
>
>
