I am using SOAP Encoding, passing XML as a string. I would have prefered to use Literal Encoding but my service is an EJB. Element is not serializable so I would have been forced to write my own EJB provider so I went with SOAP Encoding instead. Everything I have seen would indicate that for reasonable sized messages there is not alot of overhead with escaping all characters required to send as a string.
Keith Nielsen
digitalESP
"Hashimoto, Mike"
<Mike.Hashimoto@cis. To: "Soap (E-mail)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
canon.com> cc: (bcc: Keith
Nielsen/digitalesp)
Subject: Literal XML Advantages
09/27/2001 01:30 PM
Please respond to
soap-user
I'm curious what advantages (or disadvantages) exist for using "literal
XML"
when passing as a parameter in a Soap call.
Can the XML parameter just be passed as a String?
(advantages/disadvantages
please)
Do all Soap implementations support literal-XML?
Any insight appreciated.
tks,
mh
