Anne may be correct to state that document/literal is the preferred
mode; however WS-I BP 1.0 requires support for rpc/literal. Given that
she stated that .Net and Axis do not support rpc/literal, I assume that
means they do not support WS-I BP 1.0. Is this true, I find that hard
to believe. Anyone know?
Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> Steve,
>
> One thing that causes a lot of confusion is that SOAP and WSDL enable
> a layer of abstraction between the application programming model
> (RMI-like versus JMS-like) and what actually goes on the wire (RPC
> versus Document style message formats).
>
> Let me make this absolutely clear: you can use an RMI-style
> programming interface in Java and have it automatically marshal the
> parameters for you into a document-style message.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the RPC style is a mistake from the past --
> one that we should bury and leave behind us. RPC/literal should be
> avoided even more than RPC/encoded. Most SOAP implementations --
> including the two most popular implementations (.NET and Apache Axis)
> do not support RPC/literal. The RPC programming convention is optional
> in SOAP 1.2. Even fewer implementations will support RPC style in the
> future.
>
> The folks designing the JAX-RPC RI need to understand this fact.
> JAX-RPC 2.0 should be focused 100% on supporting document/literal.
> Just forget about RPC style.
>
> A little history: when SOAP was first defined, W3C had not yet
> completed the XML Schema type system, so the SOAP authors needed to
> define their own type system. Hence SOAP encoding. Keep in mind,
> though, that SOAP encoding is not a complete type system -- it is
> horribly underspecified and is the source of many interoperability
> issues. Also -- the original intention behind SOAP was to create a
> very lightweight RPC mechanism, and it depended on the encoding system
> to marshal the data -- but that was before the definition of WSDL.
>
> WSDL changed everything. WSDL fully describes the service interface.
> It provides a compiler/runtime generator everything it needs to
> marshal and unmarshal messages. There's absolutely no need to use the
> RPC convention. The RPC convention is *bad* because there's no schema
> for the message on the wire. That means that you can't validate the
> message. And RPC style supplies no added value over document style.
>
> If you want to use an RMI style programming model, then you should use
> the "wrapped" convention. The "wrapped" convention requires that you
> define a wrapper element for your parameters. The name of the wrapper
> element must be the same as the operation name. Your <wsdl:message>
> defintion should contain one part, and this <wsdl:part> should
> reference the wrapper element. When you compile this WSDL description,
> it should generate an interface that allows you to invoke the service
> just like RMI.
>
> At least that's how most JAX-RPC implementations work.
>
> Anne
>
> At 06:55 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
>
>> The question "why would you want to use rpc/encoded" is beginning to
>> resonate with me. I definitely want to avoid it, it has made life
>> hard. The "rpc" part of jax-rpc is what confused me. It made me
>> think in terms of rpc style operations.
>>
>> It finally struck me that document / literal is what I want to do, I
>> am not sure how. I need to pass an xml document to my service and
>> the service needs to return a different xml along with a byte [].
>> The document / literal style looks like it handles the xml in and xml
>> out part, but I then need to find someway to make the byte[] an
>> attachment. My client uses DII and its not obvious to me how to
>> implement this scenario using DII. Am I right that document /
>> literal gets me closer to what I need?
>>
>>
>> -SP
>>
>>
>> Doug's right in that if you want to use SOAP encoding, you need to use a
>> SOAP encoding array type.
>>
>> Please note, though, that this is a valid schema structure, and this
>> is how
>> you should define an array when using literal encoding.
>>
>> If you can't change your schema, then you must use literal encoding. For
>> best interoperability, you should use doc/literal.
>>
>> My question is why would you want to use rpc/encoded. It is something
>> to avoid.
>>
>> Anne
>>
>> At 04:27 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
>> >Christof,
>> >Where did you get this WSDL from? I am not sure it is valid. I am
>> pretty
>> >sure that soap encoding requires the use of soap-encoded arrays..
>> There
>> >is no work around for this type of WSDL.
>> >
>> >Christof Strack wrote:
>> >
>> >>Hi,
>> >>
>> >>I build a web service which uses as a value type the following type:
>> >> <xsd:complexType name="TroubleTicketValueType">
>> >> <xsd:sequence>
>> >> <xsd:element name="value" type="xsd:string"
>> >> minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>> >> </xsd:sequence>
>> >> </xsd:complexType>
>> >>When I process this with wscompile (rpc/encoded) I get an error
>> message
>> >>that this type is not supported.
>> >> From the mailing list I've seen one option is to convert the
>> sequence to
>> >> an array. This is not an option for me since the schema has to stay
>> >> fixed (compatability).
>> >>What other options do I have? Is it possible to use JAXB together with
>> >>JAX-RPC but still use rpc/encoded style?
>> >>
>> >>Regards Christof
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>> >>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>> >>
>> >
>> >--
>> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >Doug Kohlert
>> >
>> >Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>> >503-345-9806
>> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>> >recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
>> >information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
>> >distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
>> >recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
>> >all copies of the original message.
>> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>> >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Anne Thomas Manes
>> VP & Research Director
>> Burton Group
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Anne Thomas Manes
> VP & Research Director
> Burton Group
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
>
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doug Kohlert
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
503-345-9806
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all copies of the original message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jax-rpc.dev.java.net