"Weakliem, Gordon" wrote: > If you're doing document/literal, both string and byte[] are bad approaches > anyway. You take a hit on the encoding step, both in the conversion (memory > and processor) and on the wire, because base 64 is bigger, and you take a > hit to zip it if you try to alleviate the extra network traffic, and after > all that, you have to parse the XML again once it's decoded. On top of > that, your wdsdl doesn't reflect what the interface expects - now the > information that a particular parameter is XML is out of band. The right > approach long term is to leave it as XML, you could do String or byte[] as a > temporary workaround, but it's a bad general solution.
In my case the byte array is the best choice as I have a web service that can return a zipped file, xml file, png or some other formats, but these are dictated by the client, so the client knows what to expect.
