Simon,
What kind of practical problems with doc/lit are there ? I would like to know..
thanks
Simon Fell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:17:24 -0400, in soap you wrote:
>Doc/lit doesn't define type mappings, but it definitively specifies the
>structure of the message via XML Schema. Because the two applications know
>in advance exactly what the message structure is, the details of how the
>SOAP message processor maps the XML Schema to language types doesn't matter
>to the other application. When using rpc/encoded, the two applications have
>not agreed to a specific message structure. The SOAP message processor
>generates the SOAP message structure based on it's specific interpretation
>of SOAP Section 5, and there's no definitive schema of the message. The
>interoperability issues arise when two different SOAP message procesors
>interpret SOAP Section 5 slightly differently.
>
>Anne
In my experience I haven't found 2 toolkit that support the same
subset of XSD yet (cause no one supports the whole of XSD), so doc/lit
whilst in theory is more interoperable, in practice isn't. section 5
has its issues, but i think the doc/lit camp are making mountains out
of molehills about them, whilst not mentioning the practical problems
that doc/lit currently has.
Cheers
Simon
www.pocketsoap.com
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
