[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Francis Norton wrote:
>
> Paul Prescod wrote:
>
> >Already, Microsoft's GET and POST bindings
> >demonstrate that you can get *exactly the same* XML type mappings
> >without using SOAP. And if you aren't interested in pre-declared types,
> >XML-RPC is more reliably interoperable in my experience than SOAP.
> >
> Respectfully, I'd say that Microsoft's GET and POST bindings demonstrate
> exactly the opposite - that as soon as you use any parameter structure
> less trivial than a name/value list, VS.NET uses SOAP instead.
Well, my statement above is strictly true. When you use complex types
for output, you get *exactly the same* type mappings (i.e. WSDL->C#) as
you would for SOAP. The issue is type mappings, not overall
functionality.
Nevertheless, there is no reason that the same should not work for
input. VS.net merely has a bug that does not permit that. If one uses
HTTP POST there is no apparent reason that anything that can be done on
OUTPUT should be restricted on INPUT. It seems quite simple to me:
<binding name="ComplexTestBinding" type="tns:ComplexTestPortType">
<http:binding verb="POST"/>
<operation name="echoComplexType">
<http:operation location="/echoComplexType"/>
<input>
<mime:mimeXml part="in"/>
</input>
<output>
<mime:mimeXml part="return"/>
</output>
</operation>
</binding>
Paul Prescod
|
