File APIs for Java Developers
Manipulate DOC, XLS, PPT, PDF and many others from your application.
http://aspose.com/file-tools
The moose likes Web Services Certification (SCDJWS/OCEJWSD) and the fly likes WSDL - Binding in 1.1 versus 2.0 Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Certification » Web Services Certification (SCDJWS/OCEJWSD)
Bookmark "WSDL - Binding in 1.1 versus 2.0" Watch "WSDL - Binding in 1.1 versus 2.0" New topic
Author

WSDL - Binding in 1.1 versus 2.0

Dan Drillich
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 09, 2001
Posts: 1174
Good Day,

Looking at Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1 -



Versus the one from Web Services Description Language (WSDL) Version 2.0 SOAP 1.1 Binding -




At least the name is the same - StockQuoteSoapBinding

Anyway, where are the input and output elements in 2.0?

Regards,
Dan


William Butler Yeats: All life is a preparation for something that probably will never happen. Unless you make it happen.
Ivan Krizsan
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 04, 2006
Posts: 2198
    
    1
Hi!
In WSDL 2.0 there is the option to leave out operation-specific information in a binding.
In fact, it is possible to omit even the interface to which the binding is to apply to, in order to enable the binding to be used at multiple occasions.
In your example, however, both interface and an operation are supplied, so this is a binding that cannot be reused.

The input and output elements of the "binding component" (as it is called in WSDL 2.0) are optional.
If not defined, the the default options specified in the binding component are to be used. I thus expect all the operations in the example you provided to use SOAP 1.1 over HTTP, as specified in the <wsdl:binding> element.
Best wishes!


My free books and tutorials: http://www.slideshare.net/krizsan
Dan Drillich
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 09, 2001
Posts: 1174
Thank you Ivan.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: WSDL - Binding in 1.1 versus 2.0