If I understood you correctly, you are suggesting that binary data should be encoded
with Base64 inside of the SOAP message itself. Many of the articles I have read have
said that Base64 encoding within the SOAP message is inefficient. For example here
are two articles -
http://www.pocketsoap.com/pocketsoap/docs/master/attachments.htm
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/02/26/binaryxml.html
What are your comments?
-Srinivas
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Simmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 4:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Custom mapping's and DataHandlers?
If you care about interoperability with clients like gSOAP (c++) or MS .NET
your best bet is to not use DataHandlers, DIME, or multipart. For any kind
of binary data / BLOB use old reliable base64Binary objects
We had the fun of interfacing to an axis server that exported image files
as DataHandler objects and ended up having to hack together our own c++
code to bypass our SOAP library and process the raw HTTP.
---Dave
At 05:35 PM 11/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>I thought migrating to use DataHandler's and providing the attachment
>support via auto generated WSDL client code would be an improvement. I
>was concerned with the language dependant DataHandler Object but
>figured it was the "right way" and might simplify my client's use of
>the service, well my java clients anyway. But as noted it is a huge
>limitation to only support java clients.
