In fact, to be more precise, it means that there is a schema element, with the same name as the operation, that contains (wraps) the actual document element representing all the parameters.
ie: wrapped <A> <AElement/> (of type X) </A> document <AElement/> (of type X) I believe this is not part of WS-I and was defined by Microsoft only. I used to work this way but after some incompatibilities I switched to plain doc/lit instead. If you start with a wsdl, I find it easier than wrapped, and by having significant names for the elements you don't miss any clarity in the SOAP body. The java portion is nearly identical (Single java object with getX() methods instead of all unwrapped parameters directly). > Ephemeris Lappis a écrit : > >>I'm not a SOAP expert ! I think i had understood the difference between >>document and wrapped styles, and i suppose tools that will process the >>repective wsdl files will not generate similar codes : both use xml >> messages >>without soap encoding, but in document mode the javabeans arguments of >>operations must be made back from the wsdl as is, and not as distinct >>primitive arguments... >> >> > Actually the only difference between wrapped and document is the following > : > in wrapped mode, you get the name of the operation as the soap body's > root element. > > Then, you're still able to use either javabeans arguments or primitive > arguments ... or both :) > >>In my case, i can't choose the encoding mode : the targetted service must >> be >>used by J2ME clients, and, if possible, using the recent JSR172 >>specification that only supports "document style with literal use".. >> >> > Here, we all agree with you :) > > -- > Julien >
