[Xml-compile] The difference between document and rpc bindings

[Zbigniew Lukasiak]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Mark Overmeer <mark at overmeer.net> wrote:
> * Zbigniew Lukasiak (zzbbyy at gmail.com) [081114 12:08]:
>> There are loads of documentation on the subject - but I have not found
>> any high-level view instead of the mountains of details.  From all
>> that reading I have the intuition that in the document style the
>> format of the messages is specified by external (linked) XML schemas -
>> while the rpc style defines it's own XML schema for the exchanged
>> messages (together with a semantic for it).  Is that right?
>
> Actually, you have document-style, rpc-literal and rpc-encoded.
>
> With schema's and XML, you wish to explicitly define the interface
> between applications.  This is very nicely done with document style:
> the content of the SOAP request is well described (although you can
> still frustrate it, if you want to).
>
> SOAP-RPC is an half-way definedness: in the literal case, fragments
> of the body are well defined, but not precisely how they are used.
> In the encoded style, there is even more confusion.  So: only use a
> "SOAP" brand for its (undeserved) good (commercial) name as standard,
> but without committing to write a complete specification.
>
> SOAP-RPC should die IMO, and gladly the SOAP1.2 spec is also explicitly
> advices the document style.

Thanks.  One more question: is that normal that in my RPC/encoded
style WSDL I have a <wsdl:types> section?

I am trying out the possibilities available for me here - and one of
them would be to convert manually the existing RPC/encoded WSDL into a
document/literal style and then generate the server using
XML::Compile.  It looks like it has all what is needed by
document/literal (as described in
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-whichwsdl/) -
but still the style is specified as RPC/encoded.



-- 
Zbigniew Lukasiak
http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/
http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/