Now that the list has helped me solve the 1999/2001 schema issue, WSDL
is suddenly important.
One of our developers has been working on demo code for MS using
customers. He's indicated that WSDL is critical in the whole MS SOAP
world, and we had planned on supporting it anyway as it looks like a
useful technology and makes the calling and using of a service that much
So, he's written a WSDL file that is working for our service using the
MS SOAP Toolkit, but the actual SOAP request that he is generating now
is completely without type details! Apparently, they believe that if
both sides are using the WSDL file as a contract, there's no need to
encode type in each request. Sort of side step one of the major points
of XML (self-describing data) but I can certainly see their point, even
if I don't like it. :-)
This is causing problems with the base64 item as our code is now
expecting the requests to be pre-decoded. This works fine with
SOAP::Lite and Apache SOAP Java libraries, but doesn't work with MS
requests as they have no typing information within them. :-(
So, can I tell SOAP::Lite IN ADVANCE what to expect (with WSDL file?) so
that it can properly decode requests that have no typing information?
Also, the WSDL file that he has supplied doesn't seem to be compatible
with SOAP::Lite. When I use it I get this message:
Transport is not specified (using proxy() method or service description)
The WSDL file is available at http://184.108.40.206/wsdl/qc30.wsdl
anyone would like to inspect it.
I can't express my appreciate enough for SOAP::Lite and the help on the
list. SOAP::Lite makes this so much easier and more stable than MS or
Java people have it. It exemplifies the virtues of Perl in a way that is
concrete and indisputable!
-- Tom Mornini
-- eWingz Systems, Inc.
-- ICQ: 113526784, AOL: tmornini, Yahoo: tmornini, MSN: tmornini