James,
What does your web service interface look like? I like the idea of having multiple options....
Barry Lulas
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: James Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: XML and web services
"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.
