Pl see my response below..
Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From my perspective you should always use Doc/literal. I agree with you..SOAP Encoding has been the source of many interoperability issues, because the mechanism of mapping language types isn't defined concretely by SOAP Section 5. Hence you should always use literal encoding. And many implementations don't support RPC/Literal.I'm not sure why you found it necessary to use RPC/encoded in order to get the SOAP deserializer to return a string. You should be able to make that happen using Doc/Literal, if that's what you want -- the serialization requirements should be specified in the deployment descriptor. I'm using WAS 403 (supports Apache SOAP 2.2) and I don't think it directly supports Doc/literal type. My understanding is, need to use Apache 2.3 to use doc/literal.. unless I'm missing something.. Again, the issue is interoperability.. since I need to provide WSDL to my VB client and I don't know a way to create a WSDL doc for a doc/literal type service...I don't think that any SOAP engines do automatic schema validation (there's sufficient overhead associated with the process that you wouldn't want to do it by default). But many of the commercial implementations provide typed interceptors that make it simple to request validation (sometimes just by declaring a deployment option). Yes, I envisioned it that way.. The automatic schema validation thing would add in some overheads, but I feel that service (actual implementation) should be freed up from coarse-grained validation and the abstraction layer should be responsible for validating incoming request. As a result, the service can focus on its core processing...Anne----- Original Message -----From: Vishal ShahSent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:58 AMSubject: Re: design questionThanks Anne for elucidating. I'm stuck with the legacy system and infrastructure that supports it.. I need to find a clumsy way to get around to make things work..I don't concur with you on thing you mentioned below in the first paragraph. If you factor interoperability & infrastructure issues in, your design would be definitely affected accordingly. If your service is going to be consumed by a VB6 client or .net client (or any non-java consumer), RPC/literal is not the right solution. In that case, the service should be designed to use Doc/literal. Also, RPC/Encoding is not always the right design for interopetability reasons. I had my original service return a DOM element and due to interoperability reasons, I turned in to RPC/Encoding type that returns a String containing XML representation.Are there any "smart SOAP runtime" that provides validation using schema ?
Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Vishal,A SOAP runtime system should provide a layer of abstraction between your message format and the application that implements the service. Hence the format of the message (Doc/literal vs RPC/encoded) shouldn't really impact the design of your service. The SOAP runtime system should be able to marshal and unmarshal the messages, map XML to Java, dispatch the appropriate application, and transform exceptions into SOAP fault messages for you -- all based on the WSDL description and deployment descriptor -- regardless of whether you use RPC or document style messages. Your application shouldn't need to process XML unless you choose to receive the message as an XML document.You should not assume that the SOAP runtime will validate the document. If you want it to perform validation before processing, you would need to specify a validation interceptor in your deployment descriptor (to call a handler in your handler chain). You should assume that the SOAP runtime will parse the document and deserialize it into Java objects. If you are using RPC/encoded, then it does the mapping based on the SOAP Section 5 data model. If you are using Document/Literal, then it does the mapping based on the XML Schema message description.When writing a service, you should do what you would normally do in any Java application -- throw an exception. The SOAP runtime system should catch the exception and transform it into the appropriate SOAP fault message. The client SOAP runtime system should be able to interpret the SOAP fault, and assuming it's a Java system, rethrow the exception for the client.Now, of course, these best practices don't necessarily apply to Web services written using Apache SOAP. You must realise that Apache SOAP is a very old SOAP implementation that doesn't support WSDL, is very RPC/encoded-centric, and doesn't support doc/literal according to the standard.Unless you have legacy applications based on Apache SOAP, I recommend that you start using Apache Axis (http://ws.apache.org/axis), or any of the 20 or so commercial implementations that fully support SOAP 1.1, WSDL 1.1, JAX-RPC, and the WS-I Basic Profile.Best regards,Anne----- Original Message -----From: Vishal ShahSent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:59 AMSubject: design questionHi,I've a couple of design questions...I've a Doc/literal style service..What's the best way to handle any abnormal conditions and errors ?Should the service throw an exception or should it create a "error" element in a response document ?Is it safe to assume that in Doc/literal style, a doc gets parsed and validated using a schema ? If not, is the service responsible for validating (coarse-grained validation) the document ? Pl advise...ThanksVS
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
