Re: doc-literal v/s rpc-encoded
Dave Angulo <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.windows.devel.soap.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207230507030.7743-100000@california-zephyr.cs.uchicago.edu> |
If you want to send an XML document, you would have to use this. MicroSfot .NET uses this by default to allow them to send WSDL files. IBM is changing to use this as the default mode as well. SOAP-section-5 encoding does not allow you to send attributes. Dave On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Sam T wrote: > Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:16:07 -0700 > From: Sam T <[email protected]> > Reply-To: Discussion of implementing SOAP applications today > <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [SOAP] doc-literal v/s rpc-encoded > > I was trying to think of the use cases where one would prefer > to use document-literal over rpc encoded and drew a blank. > > Can anyone highlight why an application would choose > document-literal or rpc-literal as the message format ? > > What would such a use case look like ? > > Thanks > /s > > You can read messages from the SOAP archive, unsubscribe from SOAP, or subscribe to other > DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. > You can read messages from the SOAP archive, unsubscribe from SOAP, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.