What’s wrong with rpc-literal?

This post is part of Issue 8’s answer


To say it as clear and simple as possible: rpc style encoding is more about the service implementation than the message on the wire itself. That’s just wrong! As already discussed in this answer series, every rpc-literal message can be described using doc-literal encodings. Therefore there is no need to specify the implementation model of a service stub/proxy. The only thing that matters is the data on the wire.

The second thing that just drives me crazy about rpc-literal is the fact that there is no way to verify a message for correctness: Since we only got the schemas for the different message parts but not for the message itself it’s just not possible to validate the message on the wire. We only can verify the message if we got the service description by hand. But there is usually no support to verify a message against the <wsdl.message> at runtime.


To conclude: If you’re serious about Web Services and loosely coupled messaging, don’t use rpc-literal. Rather go for doc-literal!

Comments (1)

Skip to main content