<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SOAP Messages &#8211; RPC vs. Document vs. Literal vs. Encoded vs. Wrapped vs. Unwrapped</title>
	<atom:link href="http://johnragan.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/soap-messages-rpc-vs-document-vs-literal-vs-encoded-vs-wrapped-vs-unwrapped/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://johnragan.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/soap-messages-rpc-vs-document-vs-literal-vs-encoded-vs-wrapped-vs-unwrapped/</link>
	<description>My experiences in developing, managing and applying Agile processes</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:23:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: sandocean</title>
		<link>http://johnragan.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/soap-messages-rpc-vs-document-vs-literal-vs-encoded-vs-wrapped-vs-unwrapped/#comment-170</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sandocean]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:23:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnragan.org/?p=581#comment-170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well not everything&#039;s completely correct here:

&quot;The rpc style is limited to very simple XSD types such as String and Integer&quot;. Well that&#039;s not a limitation of the rpc style. Using &quot;encoded&quot; allows you to specify the types of the XML directly. rpc just specifies that you use the operation name when invoking a web service.

&quot;However, the rpc style’s SOAP messages are easier to look at and understand.&quot;
I&#039;d say that&#039;s not true either. Encoded messages are harder to look at because of the type information. document/literal/wrapped and rpc literal style messages will probably look exactly the same. document/literal messages will even look simpler since you leave out the operation name.

Jax-WS RI (since Java 6 and above I think) uses document/literal/wrapped by default.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well not everything&#8217;s completely correct here:</p>
<p>&#8220;The rpc style is limited to very simple XSD types such as String and Integer&#8221;. Well that&#8217;s not a limitation of the rpc style. Using &#8220;encoded&#8221; allows you to specify the types of the XML directly. rpc just specifies that you use the operation name when invoking a web service.</p>
<p>&#8220;However, the rpc style’s SOAP messages are easier to look at and understand.&#8221;<br />
I&#8217;d say that&#8217;s not true either. Encoded messages are harder to look at because of the type information. document/literal/wrapped and rpc literal style messages will probably look exactly the same. document/literal messages will even look simpler since you leave out the operation name.</p>
<p>Jax-WS RI (since Java 6 and above I think) uses document/literal/wrapped by default.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

