This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

developer:document_literal [2011/03/02 13:41]
irina created
developer:document_literal [2011/03/02 13:45]
Line 10: Line 10:
 </​code>​ </​code>​
 +Here are the strengths and weaknesses of this approach:
 +===== Strengths =====
 +    - There is no type encoding info.
 +    - You can finally validate this message with any XML validator. Everything within the soap:body is defined in a schema.
 +    - Document/​literal is WS-I compliant, but with restrictions (see weaknesses).
 +===== Weaknesses =====
 +    - The WSDL is getting a bit more complicated. This is a very minor weakness, however, since WSDL is not meant to be read by humans.
 +    - The operation name in the SOAP message is lost. Without the name, dispatching can be difficult, and sometimes impossible.
 +    - WS-I only allows one child of the soap:body in a SOAP message. As you can see in Listing 7, this example'​s soap:body has two children.
 +The document/​literal style seems to have merely rearranged the strengths and weaknesses from the RPC/literal model. You can validate the message, but you lose the operation name.
developer/document_literal.txt ยท Last modified: 2011/03/02 13:45 by irina

Page Tools