I personally believe that "SOAP encoding, which is responsible for 90% of the interoperability issues.." is a big myth. I get tired of hearing it from those who believe that literal is the "one true way". I find almost every other argument for literal much more compelling than this.
SOAP encoding solves a problem (representing graphs), and we spend a LOT more time in SOAPBuilders working on document/literal interop problems than rpc/encoded interop problems. Just venting... -- Tom Jordahl -----Original Message----- From: Andre Tost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 11:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Document style web services Eric, that is not quite correct. There are two different things, namely the invocation style and the encoding style. The BP supports both rpc and document invocation style, but only literal XML encoding style. In other words, SOAP encoding, which is reponsible for 90% of the interoperability issues, is excluded. Andre Tost Eric Rajkovic <eric.rajkovic@or To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] acle.com> cc: Subject: Re: Document style web services 11/21/2002 10:58 PM Please respond to axis-user Anne, Just a little addition to your comment on WS-I BP: "WS-I has just published its Basic Profile draft, which only supports document-style" In the current published revision, the profile support both rpc and document styles. It only restrict the use to literal. eric
