You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to soap-user@xml.apache.org by "Krishnamurthy, Ramanathan" <rk...@APEngines.com> on 2002/01/30 23:42:44 UTC
RPC Vs Messaging
Is this distinction necessary ? Isn't messaging a special case of RPC.
I recently moved from SOAP_2_2 to Axis. And axis doesn't seem to
differentiate the two.
Thanks for any insight.
ram
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Ramanathan Krishnamurthy
AP Engines, Inc.
Five Clock Tower Place, Suite 250
Maynard, MA 01754
Why setIgnoringElementContentWhitespace method suddenly throw Throwable?
Posted by Tim Wei <ti...@yahoo.com>.
I have a method below. It was running fine before. Why suddenly
the following line of code throws me a Throwable with null
message?
dbf.setIgnoringElementContentWhitespace(true);
in the "catch (Throwable t)" block, it prints: Throwable caught
in toXML(): null
public static Document toXML()
{
Document doc = null;
try
{
DocumentBuilderFactory dbf =
DocumentBuilderFactory.newInstance();
dbf.setIgnoringComments(true);
dbf.setValidating(false);
dbf.setIgnoringElementContentWhitespace(true);
dbf.setCoalescing(true);
dbf.setExpandEntityReferences(true);
DocumentBuilder docBuilder = null;
try
{
docBuilder = dbf.newDocumentBuilder();
}
catch (ParserConfigurationException pe)
{
System.out.println("ParserConfigurationException
caught in toXML(): " + pe.getMessage());
}
docBuilder.setErrorHandler(new DefaultHandler());
doc = docBuilder.parse(new
File(EVENT_TEMPLATE_XML_FILE));
// normalize text representation
doc.getDocumentElement().normalize();
} catch (SAXParseException err)
{
System.out.println("SAXParseException caught in
toXML(): " + err.getMessage());
} catch (SAXException e)
{
System.out.println("SAXException caught in toXML():
" + e.getMessage());
} catch (Exception ne)
{
System.out.println("Exception caught in toXML(): " +
ne.getMessage());
} catch (Throwable t)
{
System.out.println("Throwable caught in toXML(): " +
t.getMessage());
}
return doc;
}// end toXML()
=====
Tim's home page:
http://www.geocities.com/timwei
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
Why setIgnoringElementContentWhitespace method suddenly throw Throwable?
Posted by Tim Wei <ti...@yahoo.com>.
I have a method below. It was running fine before. Why suddenly
the following line of code throws me a Throwable with null
message?
dbf.setIgnoringElementContentWhitespace(true);
in the "catch (Throwable t)" block, it prints: Throwable caught
in toXML(): null
public static Document toXML()
{
Document doc = null;
try
{
DocumentBuilderFactory dbf =
DocumentBuilderFactory.newInstance();
dbf.setIgnoringComments(true);
dbf.setValidating(false);
dbf.setIgnoringElementContentWhitespace(true);
dbf.setCoalescing(true);
dbf.setExpandEntityReferences(true);
DocumentBuilder docBuilder = null;
try
{
docBuilder = dbf.newDocumentBuilder();
}
catch (ParserConfigurationException pe)
{
System.out.println("ParserConfigurationException
caught in toXML(): " + pe.getMessage());
}
docBuilder.setErrorHandler(new DefaultHandler());
doc = docBuilder.parse(new
File(EVENT_TEMPLATE_XML_FILE));
// normalize text representation
doc.getDocumentElement().normalize();
} catch (SAXParseException err)
{
System.out.println("SAXParseException caught in
toXML(): " + err.getMessage());
} catch (SAXException e)
{
System.out.println("SAXException caught in toXML():
" + e.getMessage());
} catch (Exception ne)
{
System.out.println("Exception caught in toXML(): " +
ne.getMessage());
} catch (Throwable t)
{
System.out.println("Throwable caught in toXML(): " +
t.getMessage());
}
return doc;
}// end toXML()
=====
Tim's home page:
http://www.geocities.com/timwei
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
RE: RPC Vs Messaging
Posted by Anne Thomas Manes <an...@manes.net>.
Nice concise description, Gary, but I should point out that the RPC
programming model and the encoding system are orthogonal. You can use
literal with RPC, and you can use encoded with Document.
Anne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Feldman [mailto:gaf@rtr.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 11:50 AM
> To: soap-user@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: RPC Vs Messaging
>
>
> > From: Krishnamurthy, Ramanathan [mailto:rkrishnamurthy@APEngines.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:43 PM
> >
> > Is this distinction necessary ? Isn't messaging a special case of RPC.
>
> The terminology itself is confusing. I'm not sure where this
> usage started,
> but
> I think it's wrong. And I think you have it backwards (RPC is the special
> case).
>
> Here's my take:
>
> SOAP defines a message protocol. Thus everything is a message, and a SOAP
> message is defined by the standard as being an XML document comprised of a
> SOAP envelope containing an optional header and required body.
>
> What some people call the message model (including, in some sense, the
> Apache SOAP
> API) is also called document-style SOAP (e.g., the new O'Reilly
> book on SOAP
> by Snell,
> et al uses this term), though I think "generic" might also be a reasonable
> term. In
> any event, all SOAP says is that the body must be an XML element named
> "body".
>
> The RPC model adds to this (and thus is a subset) by adding an encoding
> scheme (technically it's just one possible encoding scheme, but it seems
> certain to be the de
> facto standard) and a model that defines parameters, requests, and
> responses. Thus, it really is a special case of the more general document
> model that happens to use one
> particular set of rules for the content of the body of the SOAP message.
>
> Just to confound things, there's nothing stopping you from building an RPC
> system using the Apache SOAP "Message" model.
>
> Gary
>
> ====================================================================
> Ready-to-Run Software, Inc.
> The Industry's Leading Provider of
> Cross-Platform and Porting Services
> *****************************
> email: gaf@rtr.com Gary Feldman
> fax : 1-978-692-5401 Ready-to-Run Software, Inc.
> voice: 1-978-251-5431 11 School Street
> www : http://www.rtr.com North Chelmsford, MA 01863
> USA
>
RE: RPC Vs Messaging
Posted by Anne Thomas Manes <an...@manes.net>.
Nice concise description, Gary, but I should point out that the RPC
programming model and the encoding system are orthogonal. You can use
literal with RPC, and you can use encoded with Document.
Anne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Feldman [mailto:gaf@rtr.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 11:50 AM
> To: soap-user@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: RPC Vs Messaging
>
>
> > From: Krishnamurthy, Ramanathan [mailto:rkrishnamurthy@APEngines.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:43 PM
> >
> > Is this distinction necessary ? Isn't messaging a special case of RPC.
>
> The terminology itself is confusing. I'm not sure where this
> usage started,
> but
> I think it's wrong. And I think you have it backwards (RPC is the special
> case).
>
> Here's my take:
>
> SOAP defines a message protocol. Thus everything is a message, and a SOAP
> message is defined by the standard as being an XML document comprised of a
> SOAP envelope containing an optional header and required body.
>
> What some people call the message model (including, in some sense, the
> Apache SOAP
> API) is also called document-style SOAP (e.g., the new O'Reilly
> book on SOAP
> by Snell,
> et al uses this term), though I think "generic" might also be a reasonable
> term. In
> any event, all SOAP says is that the body must be an XML element named
> "body".
>
> The RPC model adds to this (and thus is a subset) by adding an encoding
> scheme (technically it's just one possible encoding scheme, but it seems
> certain to be the de
> facto standard) and a model that defines parameters, requests, and
> responses. Thus, it really is a special case of the more general document
> model that happens to use one
> particular set of rules for the content of the body of the SOAP message.
>
> Just to confound things, there's nothing stopping you from building an RPC
> system using the Apache SOAP "Message" model.
>
> Gary
>
> ====================================================================
> Ready-to-Run Software, Inc.
> The Industry's Leading Provider of
> Cross-Platform and Porting Services
> *****************************
> email: gaf@rtr.com Gary Feldman
> fax : 1-978-692-5401 Ready-to-Run Software, Inc.
> voice: 1-978-251-5431 11 School Street
> www : http://www.rtr.com North Chelmsford, MA 01863
> USA
>
RE: RPC Vs Messaging
Posted by Gary Feldman <ga...@rtr.com>.
> From: Krishnamurthy, Ramanathan [mailto:rkrishnamurthy@APEngines.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:43 PM
>
> Is this distinction necessary ? Isn't messaging a special case of RPC.
The terminology itself is confusing. I'm not sure where this usage started,
but
I think it's wrong. And I think you have it backwards (RPC is the special
case).
Here's my take:
SOAP defines a message protocol. Thus everything is a message, and a SOAP
message is defined by the standard as being an XML document comprised of a
SOAP envelope containing an optional header and required body.
What some people call the message model (including, in some sense, the
Apache SOAP
API) is also called document-style SOAP (e.g., the new O'Reilly book on SOAP
by Snell,
et al uses this term), though I think "generic" might also be a reasonable
term. In
any event, all SOAP says is that the body must be an XML element named
"body".
The RPC model adds to this (and thus is a subset) by adding an encoding
scheme (technically it's just one possible encoding scheme, but it seems
certain to be the de
facto standard) and a model that defines parameters, requests, and
responses. Thus, it really is a special case of the more general document
model that happens to use one
particular set of rules for the content of the body of the SOAP message.
Just to confound things, there's nothing stopping you from building an RPC
system using the Apache SOAP "Message" model.
Gary
====================================================================
Ready-to-Run Software, Inc.
The Industry's Leading Provider of
Cross-Platform and Porting Services
*****************************
email: gaf@rtr.com Gary Feldman
fax : 1-978-692-5401 Ready-to-Run Software, Inc.
voice: 1-978-251-5431 11 School Street
www : http://www.rtr.com North Chelmsford, MA 01863
USA
RE: RPC Vs Messaging
Posted by Gary Feldman <ga...@rtr.com>.
> From: Krishnamurthy, Ramanathan [mailto:rkrishnamurthy@APEngines.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:43 PM
>
> Is this distinction necessary ? Isn't messaging a special case of RPC.
The terminology itself is confusing. I'm not sure where this usage started,
but
I think it's wrong. And I think you have it backwards (RPC is the special
case).
Here's my take:
SOAP defines a message protocol. Thus everything is a message, and a SOAP
message is defined by the standard as being an XML document comprised of a
SOAP envelope containing an optional header and required body.
What some people call the message model (including, in some sense, the
Apache SOAP
API) is also called document-style SOAP (e.g., the new O'Reilly book on SOAP
by Snell,
et al uses this term), though I think "generic" might also be a reasonable
term. In
any event, all SOAP says is that the body must be an XML element named
"body".
The RPC model adds to this (and thus is a subset) by adding an encoding
scheme (technically it's just one possible encoding scheme, but it seems
certain to be the de
facto standard) and a model that defines parameters, requests, and
responses. Thus, it really is a special case of the more general document
model that happens to use one
particular set of rules for the content of the body of the SOAP message.
Just to confound things, there's nothing stopping you from building an RPC
system using the Apache SOAP "Message" model.
Gary
====================================================================
Ready-to-Run Software, Inc.
The Industry's Leading Provider of
Cross-Platform and Porting Services
*****************************
email: gaf@rtr.com Gary Feldman
fax : 1-978-692-5401 Ready-to-Run Software, Inc.
voice: 1-978-251-5431 11 School Street
www : http://www.rtr.com North Chelmsford, MA 01863
USA