Re: rpc/literal

This article [1] does a really nice job explaining why rpc/literal doesn't
make sense and doesn't really provide us any advantage over doc/literal.
The key point is that there is a layer of abstraction between the message
format on the wire (rpc versus document) and the programming model used by
an application (rpc versus messaging). In other words, you can use an
rpc-style programming model and generate doc/literal messages on the wire.
That's what the "wrapped" doc/literal style does for you.

There are some serious limitations to the rpc style:

1- you have not schema of the message on the wire, so you can't validate it
2- you are severely restricted in message structure, e.g., you can't use
attributes
3- developers have a tendency to expose native language object structures
through the WSDL when using rpc style, which causes interoperability issues

But I think the most significant reason not to use rpc/literal is that many
platforms (including the two most popular platforms -- .NET and Apache
Axis) don't support rpc/literal.

[1]
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwebsrv/html/rpc_literal.asp




Anne