Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-axis-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 60157 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2002 00:12:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 60148 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2002 00:12:09 -0000 From: Simon Fell To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org Subject: Re: Wrapped vs. Document Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:14:44 -0800 Organization: pocketsoap.com Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Hops: 1 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:37:56 -0500 , 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. > >What would you think we should key from? This is fairly reliable right = now as this is how Microsoft (and others?) are creating the WSDL. Ideally, the definition of rpc/literal would be fixed, so that this style of use becomes rpc/literal. In the mean time, i think it should be a tool option, and not driven by things in the WSDL >It is likely that in the future we will provide a WSDL2Java switch to = turn off this heuristic >and just do straight-up doc/lit stuff. cool. :) Cheers Simon