This week's book giveaway is in the Mac OS forum.
We're giving away four copies of a choice of "Take Control of Upgrading to Yosemite" or "Take Control of Automating Your Mac" and have Joe Kissell on-line!
See this thread for details.
The moose likes Web Services and the fly likes Complex Type versus Simple Type in a WSDL definition Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


JavaRanch » Java Forums » Java » Web Services
Bookmark "Complex Type versus Simple Type in a WSDL definition" Watch "Complex Type versus Simple Type in a WSDL definition" New topic
Author

Complex Type versus Simple Type in a WSDL definition

Dan Drillich
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 09, 2001
Posts: 1180
Good Day,

WSDL Document Example uses complexTypes in its schema, such as -



In this specific case, it seems to me that an XSD simple element would suffice, such as -



Therefore, is there any reason for the usage of complexTypes here?

Regards,
Dan


William Butler Yeats: All life is a preparation for something that probably will never happen. Unless you make it happen.
Yaron Naveh
Greenhorn

Joined: Oct 26, 2008
Posts: 24
You are right that in this particular case a single element could be enough.

However it is a known convention to have a common root to all inner elements. So even though with one element it is not really helpful, it is still used. It also makes the SOAP more readable as the wrapper element name is based on the method name.


[url]http://webservices20.blogspot.com/[/url]
Web Services Performance, Interoperability And Testing Blog
 
GeeCON Prague 2014
 
subject: Complex Type versus Simple Type in a WSDL definition