6839RE: [soapbuilders] Literal, wsdl.exe, and SOAP Arrays
- Jan 31, 2002This is a great question!
Short answer: I think it doesn't break the letter of the WSDL spec to do this, but I do feel that it's breaking the spirit.
Long answer: array type is an encoding-ism. Since doc/lit is by definition the absense of an encoding, I'm not sure what it would mean, semantically, that derives from SOAP array. doc/lit means that the schema is the be all and end all of the wire format, and the implementation is completely uncoupled from that.
I get the feeling I don't completely understand what you are trying to do. Could you explain more what you are attempting to describe in the WSDL, and how you want that to map to a wire format?
From: sound0 [mailto:brad_taylor@...]
Sent: Thu 1/31/2002 1:16 PM
Subject: [soapbuilders] Literal, wsdl.exe, and SOAP Arrays
I have a doc/literal wsdl that defines a type that derives from SOAP
array (as descibed in WSDL sec 2.2). When I try to consume it using
the .Net wsdl.exe, I get the following error:
"Referenced type 'http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/:Array'
valid only for encodied SOAP."
As far as I can tell WSDL sec 2.2 doesn't seem to make a distinction
between the use of SOAP arrays in encoded versus literal styles. Is
this a known issue with .Net or am I committing some terrible crime
that I'm unaware of?
I know .Net supports arrays defined like this in a doc/literal WSDL:
<s:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name ="Foo"
But support for this style seems fairly sparse (eventhough SOAP sec
5.4.3 gives it a thumbs up).
Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I checked the archives, MSDN, and ASP.Net
newsgroups and didn't find anything.
Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>