Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ws-axis-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 26812 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2006 17:25:58 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Feb 2006 17:25:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 46516 invoked by uid 500); 3 Feb 2006 17:25:46 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ws-axis-user-archive@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 46499 invoked by uid 500); 3 Feb 2006 17:25:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact axis-user-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: axis-user@ws.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list axis-user@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 46488 invoked by uid 99); 3 Feb 2006 17:25:46 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 09:25:46 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [200.32.92.43] (HELO nt.knh.com.ar) (200.32.92.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 09:25:44 -0800 Received: by NT with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <1HJZXHY2>; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:34:43 -0300 Message-ID: From: Alejandro Ariel de Lio To: "'axis-user@ws.apache.org'" Subject: RE: Document Literal vs Document Wrapped vs RPC Encoding Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:34:41 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C628E8.1D4913D0" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C628E8.1D4913D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I think that the thing is that when you do soap rpc literal messages you may find it difficult to validate messages in deserializing time. That's because you use the name of the wsdl message element and not the name of the xsd element itself. -----Mensaje original----- De: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:atmanes@gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 03 de febrero de 2006 4:08 Para: axis-user@ws.apache.org Asunto: Re: Document Literal vs Document Wrapped vs RPC Encoding Quite a few SOAP engines don't support rpc/literal, therefore doc/literal (wrapped or unwrapped) is a better idea than rpc/literal. I generally recommend using wrapped doc/literal for best interop and easiest development and configuration. Note that .NET supports wrapped doc/literal by default. Anne On 2/2/06, Cyrille Le Clerc < cyrille.leclerc@pobox.com > wrote: WS-I Basic Profile, the reference for SOAP interoperability, says it prefers "literal" rather than "encoded" : Extract : "As a result, the Profile prefers the use of literal, non-encoded XML." Chapter : "4.1.7 SOAP encodingStyle Attribute" URL : http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html#refinement1644 8072 Unfortunately, I did not find in this spec any clear statement saying that "document" (in a wrapped style) is preferred to "rpc". However, you will find many articles that say "document" is preferred to "rpc". Cyrille -- Cyrille Le Clerc cyrille.leclerc@pobox.com cyrille.leclerc@fr.ibm.com http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html On 2/2/06, Jyotishman Pathak < jyotishman@gmail.com > wrote: > Dov, > > I found this article [1] from IBM to be quite useful. At the same time, I am interested in knowing more about your investigation. > > Thanks, > - Jyoti > > [1] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-whichwsdl/?ca=dgr-d evx-WebServicesMVP03 > > > > > > On 2/2/06, Balaji D L < balajidl@yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > Can you share your analyse with us ?? > > It will be very useful. > > Regards > > Balaji > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Dov Rosenberg < drosenberg@inquira.com > > > To: axis-user@ws.apache.org > > Sent: 02 February 2006 14:21:37 > > Subject: Document Literal vs Document Wrapped vs RPC Encoding > > > > I have done a bunch of investigating to determine the differences/benefits/limitations of the 3 styles of WSDL generation. In general it seems that the preferred version is Document Literal. Are there any other opinions as to the most popular version? > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > > > -- > > Dov Rosenberg > > Inquira Inc > > 370 Centerpointe Circle, ste 1178 > > Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 > > (407) 339-1177 x 102 > > (407) 339-6704 (fax) > > drosenberg@inquira.com > > AOL IM: dovrosenberg > > > > > > > > -- > Jyotishman Pathak > WWW: http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~jpathak ------_=_NextPart_001_01C628E8.1D4913D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I=20 think that the thing is that when you do soap rpc literal messages you = may find=20 it difficult to validate messages in deserializing time. That's because = you use=20 the name of the wsdl message element and not the name of the xsd = element=20 itself.
 
 
-----Mensaje = original-----
De:=20 Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:atmanes@gmail.com]
Enviado el: = viernes, 03=20 de febrero de 2006 4:08
Para:=20 axis-user@ws.apache.org
Asunto: Re: Document Literal vs = Document=20 Wrapped vs RPC Encoding

Quite a few SOAP engines don't support rpc/literal, = therefore=20 doc/literal (wrapped or unwrapped) is a better idea than rpc/literal. = I=20 generally recommend using wrapped doc/literal for best interop and = easiest=20 development and configuration. Note that .NET supports wrapped = doc/literal by=20 default.

Anne

On 2/2/06, Cyrille Le=20 Clerc <cyrille.leclerc@pobox.com&= gt;=20 wrote:
WS-I=20 Basic Profile, the reference for SOAP interoperability, says = it
prefers=20 "literal" rather than "encoded" :
  Extract : "As a = result, the=20 Profile prefers the use of literal,
non-encoded XML."=20
  Chapter : "4.1.7 SOAP encodingStyle=20 Attribute"
  URL : http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-= 16.html#refinement16448072=20

Unfortunately, I did not find in this spec any clear = statement=20 saying
that "document" (in a wrapped style) is preferred to=20 "rpc".
However, you will find many articles that say "document" = is=20 preferred to "rpc".

Cyrille

--
Cyrille Le = Clerc
cyrille.leclerc@pobox.com<= BR>cyrille.leclerc@fr.ibm.com

h= ttp://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html

= On=20 2/2/06, Jyotishman Pathak <jyotishman@gmail.com>=20 wrote:
> Dov,
>
>  I found this article = [1] from=20 IBM to be quite useful. At the same time, I am interested in = knowing more=20 about your=20 = investigation.
>
>  Thanks,
>  -=20 Jyoti
>
>  [1] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/we= bservices/library/ws-whichwsdl/?ca=3Ddgr-devx-WebServicesMVP03
&g= t;
>
>
>
>
>=20 On 2/2/06, Balaji D L <balajidl@yahoo.com > = wrote:
>=20 >
> >
> >
> > Can you share your = analyse with=20 us ??
> > It will be very useful.
> > = Regards
> >=20 Balaji
> >
> > ----- Original Message ---- =
> >=20 From: Dov Rosenberg <drosenberg@inquira.com>>=20 > To:  axis-user@ws.apache.org
&= gt;=20 > Sent: 02 February 2006 14:21:37
> > Subject: = Document Literal=20 vs Document Wrapped vs RPC Encoding
> >
> > I = have done a=20 bunch of investigating to determine the = differences/benefits/limitations of=20 the 3 styles of WSDL generation. In general it seems that the = preferred=20 version is Document Literal. Are there any other opinions as to the = most=20 popular version?
> >
> > Thanks in = advance
>=20 >
> >
> > --
> > Dov = Rosenberg
> >=20 Inquira Inc
> > 370 Centerpointe Circle, ste 1178
> = >=20 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
> > (407) 339-1177 x = 102
> >=20 (407) 339-6704 (fax)
> >  drosenberg@inquira.com
>= ; >=20 AOL IM: dovrosenberg
> >
>=20 >
>
>
>
> --
> Jyotishman = Pathak
>=20 WWW: http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~j= pathak

------_=_NextPart_001_01C628E8.1D4913D0--