Don't they have separate sample applications for doc/lit and rpc/lit?
I'd assume they would, but haven't looked into this myself.
For that matter, I don't know why the WS-I decided to stay with two
options (doc/lit and rpc/lit) as opposed to just one. I haven't seen any
place where they actually mandate support for either, only that they
forbid other alternatives (rpc/enc in particular). It seems like this
just offers the opportunity for more interoperability confusion - which
was what WS-I was supposed to solve.
- Dennis
Doug Kohlert wrote:
>Dennis,
>I guess I assumed WS-I BP requires rpc/literal since the sample
>application uses it quite a bit. Seems if support isn't required, the
>sample app would not test for it.
>
>Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
>
>
>
>>I don't know of any place where WS-I BP requires support for
>>rpc/literal, only that it allows it. It seems clear that this form is
>>likely to die out quickly, since it has major disadvantages as opposed
>>to doc/literal (particularly that it can't be validated) and no
>>substantial advantages.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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