| Author |
Document/Literal Wrapped Style/Use
|
Mohamed Farouk
Ranch Hand
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
Posts: 234
|
|
Hello Friends IBM article here http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-whichwsdl/ explains that Document /Literal wrapped style/use is the best as it generates the same soap message as RPC/literal the only difference being in the way the types section is defined for D/L W and D/L does not have type which leads to an advantage of D/L W over D/L. Now I did not understand correctly the below statement mentioned as an advantage in the D/L w please can you explain. "Everything that appears in the soap:body is defined by the schema, so you can easily validate this message. " Thanks
|
SCJP, SCWCD, SCBCD, SCEA 5
|
 |
Deepak Kaul
Greenhorn
Joined: Nov 08, 2005
Posts: 13
|
|
Everything that appears in the soap:body is defined by the schema, so you can easily validate this message.
This means that you can have a XML schema which defines the contents under soap:body and any XML validator can be used to validate this message. This is also true for document/literal.
|
 |
Mohamed Farouk
Ranch Hand
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
Posts: 234
|
|
Hello Deepak Thanks for your reply, If RPC/Literal as well produces the same SOAP Envelop with myMethod element inside it why cant we have a XML schema which defines the contents under soap:body and any XML validator can be used to validate this message. What is different in that case? Thanks Regards Farouk
|
 |
Deepak Kaul
Greenhorn
Joined: Nov 08, 2005
Posts: 13
|
|
|
in case of RPC/literal myMethod is the method name and thus is not part of the XML schema
|
 |
 |
|
|
subject: Document/Literal Wrapped Style/Use
|
|
|