Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7246Re: [soapbuilders] rpc/literal and wrapped doc-lit

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Kulp
    Mar 1, 2002
      Speaking for myself (not for IONA for this message. I don't think IONA
      has an official position on this yet), I have to agree 100%. I REALLY
      like rpc/literal as a transport for RPC style messaging. It really is
      the best of all worlds in my opinion. Think about it:

      1) The operation name is always part of the soap message. Also, since
      this is literal (no hrefs), the only element in the body is the RPC
      wrapper element. This makes it very easy to dispatch on no matter what
      style parser you use (streaming, sax, dom, etc...) Deterimining the
      operation to call on the server side is trivial. Also, things like
      "echoVoid" can be done easily.

      2) The parameter descriptions are "literal", thus bound by the schema
      descriptions, not the abiguous and sometimes confusing section 5
      encoding.

      3) Since each parameter is placed in the message in the WSDL
      individually, you can do SOAP w/ attachments with RPC/literal. You
      cannot do so with the wrapped doc/literal as there is only 1 part in the
      message, the wrapper element. I don't know how DIME handles this so I
      cannot comment on it, but the MIME extension for WSDL only really allow
      attachments of message parts. If you only have 1 part that is the
      wrapper part, no-attachements are possible.

      4) Since the rpc wrapper element is namespace qualified, the individual
      part elements don't need to be. Since elements directly in the soap:body
      must be ns qualified, with doc/lit you have to qualify them even if their
      schema has them unqualified.

      Anyway, I really like rpc/literal. XMLBus does currently support it
      (both client and server) and I would like to see it more widely used.

      Enjoy!

      --
      J. Daniel Kulp
      Principal Engineer
      IONA
      END 2 ANYWHERE
      P: 781-902-8727 C: 617-513-4582 F:781-902-8001
      daniel.kulp@...

      On Friday 01 March 2002 01:01, wes_moulder wrote:
      > So, on the plane trip back home, I started wondering about two great
      > mysteries that came up at the soapbuilders conference. As the title
      > suggests, this is about rpc/literal and wrapped doc-lit. Since we've
      > got an unknown style/use combination, why are we overloading doc/lit
      > to support the idea of a method call with the wrapped/bare semantics?
      > My understanding of rpc is that it's supposed to declare that the
      > message in the body is in fact a method call. Since this is what
      > wrapped does as well, why not merge the ideas there, and declare that
      > our interpretation of rpc/literal is indeed wrapped doc/lit?
      > Is there any technical reason that this should not be done? (I should
      > probably go read the spec to see, but I just got home, and I'm
      > exhausted. I'll do it in the morning if there are no replies.)
      >
      > Going forward into SOAP 1.2, is it possible to suggest to the SOAP
      > working group that this should be the mapping of that combination (if
      > they don't just do away with the literal vs encoding semantics)? The
      > whole idea here is to eliminate the "parameters" hack to figuring out
      > which version of doc/lit you're using.
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic