Re: Using base64Binary instead of hexBinary for binary fields - when and why?

[Ellecer Valencia <el...@gmail.com>]

Thanks Dennis!

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Dennis Sosnoski <dm...@sosnoski.com> wrote:
> Hi Ellecer,
>
> Schema is a mish-mash of features, many of which do not make any sense.
> xs:hexBinary is pretty much in this category. It's always going to be
> bulkier than xs:base64Binary, and has no compensating advantages. Just
> ignore it, and always use xs:base64Binary - that way, in cases where MTOM is
> not active you'll still have a reasonably compact format.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> --
> Dennis M. Sosnoski
> Java XML and Web Services
> Axis2 Training and Consulting
> http://www.sosnoski.com - http://www.sosnoski.co.nz
> Seattle, WA +1-425-939-0576 - Wellington, NZ +64-4-298-6117
>
>
>
> Ellecer Valencia wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been working on a web service that will be receiving binary
>> files, and I've been researching MTOM. Most of the documents I've seen
>> state that in the WSDL, your binary field should be of type
>> xs:base64Binary or xs:hexBinary, and that either of these two will
>> result in a byte[] when the proxy classes are generated.
>>
>> What is still unclear to me is when you should use hexBinary over
>> base64Binary. Most sample code I've seen actually uses hex64Binary. In
>> what scenarios should you use one over the other?
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Ellecer
>>
>