W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2003

Re: Are RPC/Encoded Web Services vanishing?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 10 Jul 2003 16:44:10 +0200
To: "Agarwal, Naresh" <nagarwal@informatica.com>
Cc: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1057848250.8052.71.camel@localhost>

Naresh,

Toolkits use doc/lit because it's the least-problematic combination in
WSDL 1.1, in terms of interoperability and even in terms of clarity of
the spec.

SOAP Encoding and SOAP RPC Representation were optional even in SOAP
1.1, even though the specification was not all that explicit about it.
The existence of doc/lit in WSDL 1.1 (which uses SOAP 1.1) proves it.

WS-Description WG has not dropped support for graph data encoding (it is
in their chapter), it just dropped the WSDL 1.1 "encoded" form of using
SOAP Encoding with XML Schema, mostly because it abused XML Schema and
it was not very well specified.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect
                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/





On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 15:58, Agarwal, Naresh wrote:
> Is RPC/Encoded form of SOAP is vanishing out and Doc/Literal form of
> SOAP is going to be more popular in the future?
>  
> Have a look at the following facts:
>  
>  Some of toolkit (like .NET) use Doc/Literal by default
> SOAP 1.2 specification (recently announced as standard by W3C) makes
> support for SOAP encoding optional (that is, a toolkit can claim SOAP
> 1.2 compliance without supporting     SOAP encoding)
>  W3C Web Service Description Working Group chose to drop support for
> encoding from their latest working draft of the WSDL 1.2
> specification.
>  
> thanks,
> Naresh Agarwal
>  
>  
>  
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 10:44:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT