rpc encoding vs rpc literal about wash_out HOT 18 CLOSED

Why would you need this? This will definitely make wash_out much more complicated for, well, no reason?

from wash_out.

We will need to follow a wsdl that was defined by somebody else, they expect us to provide a SOAP service with rpc/literal. They still use apache axis which is about 8 or 9 years old!
If i remember correctly: back then encoded did not work very well between different stacks (Java/Net/...).

from wash_out.

According to the client software I'm trying to serve, I need document/literal encoding. What a pain. Any advise?

from wash_out.

Because I have a requirement in a project that integrates with several
different vendors. If the gem would make it possible to use rpc/literal as
well, then that would make my life a whole lot easier. Besides, its always
better for business when our answer is "yes we can integrate with that".

On 26/09/2012, at 05:48, Boris Staal [email protected] wrote:

Why would you need this? This will definitely make wash_out much more
complicated for, well, no reason?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com/roundlake/wash_out/issues/58#issuecomment-8883100.

from wash_out.

@inossidabile: probably no one is using SOAP just for fun but because mandated by other systems/software. Now i don't know hoch much more complicated literal would be since i haven't touched SOAP for quite a while and never was much into the specs. Can you elaborate?

from wash_out.

Well, yes, SOAP is no fun at all. That's damn true. That's why I want to keep WashOut as light as possible. Right now WSDL is just an XMLBuilder template. In theory we can split it into two templates for literal and encoded notations. The problem here is that I would really like to keep my mind as far away from those definitions as possible. In my experience I never met any systems that would require literal definition explicitly. But if you meet them – okay, looks like I'll have to do something about it.

Three upvotes is something I can't ignore. But unfortunately, guys, I can not give you exact deadline :(.

from wash_out.

Thanks!
I no expert at SOAP... so if can give some details what needs to be done then i might be able to help. WSDL generation, request parsing, ?

from wash_out.

Yes exactly. WSDL generation and request parsing. And that's it :)

from wash_out.

It was decided to not use SOAP at all for my project (instead we will use a message queue) so i'm busy with other things. I can still help out if there are some specific tasks (my SOAP knowhow is still not good enough)

from wash_out.

Nop, It's easier for me to code it myself as soon as I split it to something specific. Decision to go with queues and not SOAP is damn right one :).

from wash_out.

I'll make sure to forward yout thoughts on SOAP to the guy who pushed us into this direction the first place:-)
thanks for wash_out and support!

from wash_out.

Another vote for document/literal. That format has gained momentum thanks to WS-I and Microsoft (which advocated for the so-called Document-literal wrapped).

I've been pushed in that direction, so I'll unfortunately probably need to fork wash_out to support it in the short term.

Boris, if you have advice on what approach might make the effort pull-able by you, I'm open for suggestions.

from wash_out.

@gorism I think it should be implemented as two separate XMLBuilder templates. I'm not aware of details and therefore not sure if it's enough though.

from wash_out.

I took a first pass at this, but opted to use a single builder but with helper methods to adjust between the two styles. The differences between the rpc/encoded and document/literal styles was slight enough that it seemed the cleaner approach. But I could be convinced otherwise.

I'm about to do some integration testing with the external party who will be using the SOAP interface. If my approach holds up through integration testing, then I'll do a pull request and you can take a look and see what you think.

from wash_out.

This is incredible! I believe you should open PR ASAP so I could join early.

from wash_out.

@gorism how is it going? :)

from wash_out.

Painfully slow.

I've held off on submitting a pull request because I don't know if I broke your unit tests with the changes. Let me run them, and if I broke them fix them, then do a PR.

from wash_out.

Implemented by @gorism at 0.7.0.

from wash_out.