Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
WCF Interoperability Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WCF Interoperability

    Hi.
    We are creating web services that will be consumed by a .NET WCF Client. The .NET team wants to use the DataContractSerializer http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms733112.aspx instead of the default XmlSerializer. And we want to follow the wrapped document/literal convention.

    Using the DCS means that we must adhere to some xsd design patterns - mostly in the link above. However there are at least on other other quirk that is not very well documented, and that has to do with the wsdl definition.

    According to the following blogs:the 'wsdl' 'part' of the 'message' MUST be named 'parameters'.

    Example:
    Code:
     <wsdl:message name="StockQuoteRequest">
        <wsdl:part element="tns:StockQuoteRequest" 
                   name="parameters"/>
      </wsdl:message>
    According to my investigations, Spring-WS uses the message name as the part name. See DefaultMessagesProvider.populatePart(..)

    Is there a good reason for this? Will I be in trouble if I bypass this by creating a new implementation of the MessagesProvider interface and use that with the ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefinition?

    Regards,
    Paul Nyheim

  • #2
    Originally posted by Paul Nyheim View Post
    Is there a good reason for this? Will I be in trouble if I bypass this by creating a new implementation of the MessagesProvider interface and use that with the ProviderBasedWsdl4jDefinition?
    There is no particular reason for this, it's just one choice of name. And yes, using the provider-based definition, you can easily plugin your own MessagesProvider.

    Comment

    Working...
    X