On Friday 17 June 2005 19:15, Aleksander Slominski wrote:
> Jos van den Oever wrote:
> >Hi Alek,
> >
> >Thanks for your extensive reply.
> >
> >>i only support WSDL doc/literal and no rpc/encoding.
> >
> >Oops, I definitly need rpc.
> >
> >Well, I guess I'll have to roll my own. :-(
>
> rpc/literal
Jos van den Oever wrote:
Hi Alek,
Thanks for your extensive reply.
i only support WSDL doc/literal and no rpc/encoding.
Oops, I definitly need rpc.
Well, I guess I'll have to roll my own. :-(
rpc/literal is supported to some degree in XSUL2 but support is limited
(and untestd)
Hi Alek,
Thanks for your extensive reply.
> i only support WSDL doc/literal and no rpc/encoding.
Oops, I definitly need rpc.
Well, I guess I'll have to roll my own. :-(
But I've got a simple client running now. It's now difficult after all.
Thanks again for your trouble, though!
Cheers, Jos
Jos van den Oever wrote:
On Friday 17 June 2005 09:11, Aleksander Slominski wrote:
you are welcome to take a look on XSUL2 that has this and many other
improvements - in particular WSIFMessage is XmlElement and XML-Java
mapping is optional layer - XmlBeans looked like the most complete XML
S
On Friday 17 June 2005 09:11, Aleksander Slominski wrote:
> you are welcome to take a look on XSUL2 that has this and many other
> improvements - in particular WSIFMessage is XmlElement and XML-Java
> mapping is optional layer - XmlBeans looked like the most complete XML
> Schema data binding so it
Jos van den Oever wrote:
On Thursday 16 June 2005 19:18, Aleksander Slominski wrote:
hi Jos,
in ancient times (few years ago) there was big push to hide XML and to
do aggressive XML-Java type-mapping.
now it seems we entered more XML as-it-is friendly era and definitely it
is one of the pl
On Thursday 16 June 2005 19:18, Aleksander Slominski wrote:
> hi Jos,
>
> in ancient times (few years ago) there was big push to hide XML and to
> do aggressive XML-Java type-mapping.
>
> now it seems we entered more XML as-it-is friendly era and definitely it
> is one of the places where i think W
This is same as doc/literal approach where u pass the DOM element to the service and retrieve back the DOM element.Jos van den Oever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2004 20:11, Aleksander Slominski wrote:> Matthieu RIOU wrote:> >I was wondering if you plan to include the> >function
Jos van den Oever wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2004 20:11, Aleksander Slominski wrote:
Matthieu RIOU wrote:
I was wondering if you plan to include the
functionality of invoking by directly passing the XML
message to send and directly extracting the XML from
the response, without object
On Thursday 26 August 2004 20:11, Aleksander Slominski wrote:
> Matthieu RIOU wrote:
> >I was wondering if you plan to include the
> >functionality of invoking by directly passing the XML
> >message to send and directly extracting the XML from
> >the response, without object
> >serialization/deseri
Matthieu RIOU wrote:
I was wondering if you plan to include the
functionality of invoking by directly passing the XML
message to send and directly extracting the XML from
the response, without object
serialization/deserialization in WSIF.
absolutely yes and to make things smoother to have also DOM
11 matches
Mail list logo
