Mailing-List: contact axis-user-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: axis-user@ws.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4141F2DB.9080900@mindreef.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:30:51 -0400
From: Jim Murphy <jmurphy@mindreef.com>
Organization: Mindreef, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: axis-user@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: rpc vs. doc/literal interop
References: 
 <D84B41C949A2C04A8611CB500ED0346411CFA5@stamexchange1.paymentech.us>
In-Reply-To: 
 <D84B41C949A2C04A8611CB500ED0346411CFA5@stamexchange1.paymentech.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The issues are basically this:

1.  With rpc/enc there are many "valid" ways to say the same thing.  If 
the soap stacks you are interested in have implemented the same subset 
of these options your all set - kind of.

2.  With doc lit there is one way to serialize a message and its 
described completely by XML Schema so with less optionality there is a 
better chance of more toolktis getting it right.

Jim

Melzer, Steven wrote:
> can someone please explain to me the interop issues with rpc vs. doc literal.  specifically, what datatypes (arrays, nested complex types, etc) will interop.
> 
> i am writing some web services and need to support .net and gsoap clients.  rpc seems a lot easier, but not if it won't interop with all these clients.
> 
> thanks,
> steve
>   
> Learn more about Paymentech's payment processing services at www.paymentech.com
> THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL.  This e-mail message and any attachments are proprietary and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, you may not print, distribute, or copy this message or any attachments.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachments from your computer.
> ..
>