axis-c-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ahab Abouzour <>
Subject Re: WSDL2Ws tool and wrapped vs nonwrapped
Date Fri, 20 May 2005 15:20:34 GMT

Samisa and John (and others),

I read this article for Anne Thomas Manes found here:
and it REALLY helped me understand the basics. Also I
read the WSDL spec 1.1 sections 3.3 soap:binding,
section 3.4 soap:operation, section 3.5 soap:body.

I'm going to share with you what I THINKING I
UNDERSTOOD from these readings (correct me if I'm

1- Wrapped is a form of document/literal. It must
follow the rules described by Anne's article. Most
important ones is: ONE body part in input/output
message, soap:binding should specify style="document"
and soap:body must specify use="literal"

2- Wrapped and unWrapped basically specify how the
soap should look like to that both client and server
know how to parse/deserialize it.

3- From a WSDL2Ws tool perspective, this is a
server-side thing ONLY and is useful when you have
your webservice implemented (in java or c++) and you
want to generate the WSDL file for it. You tell the
tool how you want it generate the WSDL for you,
wrapped (doc/lit) or unwrapped (rpc/enc). Once the
services is generated in either styles, it will expect
the soap to conform to the style rules so that it can
parse it. I guess the tool should validate if this
option is used with server-side and outputs a warning
if otherwise.

4- From a client side perspective, which what I was
doing trying to generate the stubs, wrapped/unwrapped
options are meaningless because the client STARTS with
a WSDL document and it HAS to follow the rules in that
document. If the services expects wrappped soap and
specifies that explicitly in the WSDL and the client
["force" things for example by generating their own
soap and] sends unwrapped soap, I expect
parsing/deserialization problems to occur on the
server side. 
So, a simple printed warning is good enough at least
to alert the user that's they're trying to do
something illogical.

Hope that clarifies things and if you thing there is
something I miss interpreted, please let me know as
we're all trying to understand this!

--- John Hawkins <> wrote:
> If I remember from when I looked into this -
> unwrapped is practically not 
> implemented (as can be seen) I was going to remove
> this option from 
> Samisa Abeysinghe <> 
> 20/05/2005 12:54
> Please respond to
> "Apache AXIS C Developers List"
> To
> Apache AXIS C Developers List
> <>
> cc
> Subject
> Re: WSDL2Ws tool and wrapped vs nonwrapped
> This feature, though implemented some time back, is
> not well tested.
> Unfortunately, we have very little documentation on
> this.
> If any original authers are out there, please help
> here. Else one would
> have to have a look into the WSDL2Ws tool and
> establish what is
> happening here.
> As per the command line help, wrapped is the default
> - hence I assume
> wrapped is working properly. 
> Thanks,
> Samisa...
> On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 19:21, Ahab Abouzour wrote:
> > I've ran the tool with both -wwrapped and
> -wnonwrapped
> > switches but didn't see any difference in the code
> > that is generated. I used base.wsdl for that.
> After
> > the files were generated I Windiff'd both
> directories
> > only to find they're identical.
> > 
> > Am I using this switch in the wrong way? and can
> > comeone please breifly explain(or point me to
> reading
> > resource) of the difference between the two. I'm
> > guessing the generated SOAP should be different (I
> > would like to see an example of that if possible).
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________ 
> > Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
> > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
> mobile phone. 
> >
> -- 
> Samisa Abeysinghe <>
> Virtusa Corporation

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

View raw message