As well
the doc literal is more flexible to change as you can update the schema
and therefore the message structure. Not withstanding the client must use
the updated schema.
Declan O'Reilly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Neward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: rpc-literal and document-literal
> It's really more of a "Zen" thing--rpc/encoded is the act of replicating a
> call stack, whereas doc/literal is the act of passing messages, much in
the
> same differentiation between RMI and JMS. In many ways, one can look at
RMI
> and simply say, "Oh, that's easy, that's just passing an 'input' message
to
> an endpoint, and receiving an 'output' message back." This in turn begs
the
> question, what's the choice between RMI and JMS? Or, in short, what's the
> choice about between any messaging-based application, and an RPC-based
one?
>
> A messaging-based app usually offers more in the way of flexibility--for
> example, a messaging-based app can do all sorts of "oneway" actions
without
> requiring a response, and can offer store-and-forward kinds of
functionality
> as a result. (Think of the difference between email--messaging--and a
phone
> call--RPC. One requires only some supporting plumbing to make sure the
> message gets there; the other requires the same plumbing, but also that
the
> recipient be there, ready to answer the incoming request and send back a
> response.) The commensurate cost that goes with a messaging application is
> the overhead of tying "request" and "response" together--identifying that
> *this* response goes with *that* request five minutes ago, and so on. (JMS
> has some headers they reserve for precisely this purpose.)
>
> Ted Neward
> {.NET || Java} Course Author & Instructor, DevelopMentor
> (http://www.develop.com)
> http://www.javageeks.com/tneward
> http://www.clrgeeks.com/tneward
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "axis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 5:16 PM
> Subject: rpc-literal and document-literal
>
>
> > I was trying to think of the use cases where one would prefer
> > to use document-literal over rpc encoded and drew a blank.
> >
> > Can anyone highlight why an application would choose
> > document-literal or rpc-literal as the message format ?
> >
> > What would such a use case look like ?
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > /s
> >
> >
>
>
>
