axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Fell <s...@zaks.demon.co.uk>
Subject Re: Wrapped vs. Document
Date Fri, 05 Apr 2002 02:02:31 GMT
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:55:45 +0100, in soap you wrote:

>Are you aware of any other vendors that use the "wrapped" style?  Don't you
>think that using a part name (and the fact that there is only one) as a
>means of discriminating between "document" and "wrapped" is fairly delicate?
>I appreciate that this might be pedantry, but what if I wanted "document",
>not "wrapped" and named the single part "parameters"?

I believe that the IONA folks are supporting this as well. I agree
with you that keying off the part name is a pretty flaky approach.

>This leads me to a slightly deeper question (which is connected, however
>tenuous the link may seem at first), which has likely been debated before,
>so I apologise if this is ground already covered:
>
>Microsoft obviously use document style for the majority (all?) of there
>services.  This means that the data in the SOAP packets which they send is
>untyped on the wire, putting the emphasis on the framework to
>marshall/unmarshall based on the contract (WSDL), whether statically or
>dynamically.  I guess the question is, why bother to encode (using SOAP
>section 5 rules)?  Surely a combination of document style and XML schema
>(which is also a means of describing serialisation/deserialisation rules for
>XML) is sufficient for all cases?

section 5 provides a standard serialization for graphs, which XML
schema does not. At this point, its the only useful thing in section
5.

Cheers
Simon
www.pocketsoap.com

Mime
View raw message