JAXRPC, as its name implies, seems to be intended for WebServices that can
be described (and therefore be supported by tools and code-generative
utilities) by WSDL, whereas JAXM deals much more directly with the SOAP
packets themselves. I suppose an analogy here would be "do you want to crack
the HTTP packets yourself, or let Struts do it for you?". More power may be
available by writing directly against JAXM, particularly in areas that are
not very well-defined by WSDL yet (oneway, solicit/notification,
asynchronous or non-blocking request/response calls, and so on), or for
messages that cannot be described using WSDL 1.1 (such as SOAP w/
attachments messages).
This is, as was noted earlier, just one man's opinion, but a good resource
for this kind of discussion is the Microsoft WebServices area on MSDN; some
very high-powered guys (Tim Ewald manages that portion of MSDN, Martin
Gudgin is on the W3C WSDL and SOAP committees, and of course Don Box is deep
into this stuff, too, and so on) are writing on these kinds of subjects.
Also, XMLHack seems to have some good articles on WSDL and SOAP and "what's
it all mean" and so on.
Finally, I think it's important to mention that these questions you're
asking won't have a definitive answer--the truth of it is, we don't know
yet. All of this stuff is so bleeding-edge, we haven't figured out all of
the implications and/or consequences associated with it yet. It seems to
take a few years (2 or 3) for us as an industry to figure out all the warts,
so expect some backtracking and revisiting. Much of that is already going on
with SOAP 1.2 and WSDL 1.2 already, but SOAP 1.2 *just* came out, and WSDL
1.2 is still very much on the drawing board. And even then, that doesn't
mean we'll get it right the first time.
Ted Neward
{ .NET || Java } Author, Course Author, Instructor
http://www.javageeks.com
http://www.clrgeeks.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 23:21
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: rpc-literal and document-literal
Thats an interesting comparison you bring up. Which leads to
my next question
Why would someone use the doc/literal style with JAX-RPC instead of
JAXM ?
Doesnt the doc/literal seem redundant in JAX-RPC and doesnt JAXM do
the same thing ?
/s
Ted Neward wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> >
