Featured Post

JAX-ws vs JAX-rpc

-

  • SOAP 1.2 
    JAX-RPC and JAX-WS support SOAP 1.1. JAX-WS also supports SOAP 1.2.
  • XML/HTTP 
    The WSDL 1.1 specification defined an HTTP binding, which is a means by which you can send XML messages over HTTP without SOAP. JAX-RPC ignored the HTTP binding. JAX-WS adds support for it.
  • WS-I's Basic Profiles 
    JAX-RPC supports WS-I's Basic Profile (BP) version 1.0. JAX-WS supports BP 1.1. (WS-I is the web services interoperability organization.)
  • New Java features 
    • JAX-RPC maps to Java 1.4. JAX-WS maps to Java 5.0. JAX-WS relies on many of the features new in Java 5.0.
    • Java EE 5, the successor to J2EE 1.4, adds support for JAX-WS, but it also retains support for JAX-RPC, which could be confusing to today's web services novices.
  • The data mapping model 
    • JAX-RPC has its own data mapping model, which covers about 90 percent of all schema types. Those that it does not cover are mapped to javax.xml.soap.SOAPElement.
    • JAX-WS's data mapping model is JAXB. JAXB promises mappings for all XML schemas.
  • The interface mapping model 
    JAX-WS's basic interface mapping model is not extensively different from JAX-RPC's; however:
    • JAX-WS's model makes use of new Java 5.0 features.
    • JAX-WS's model introduces asynchronous functionality.
  • The dynamic programming model 
    • JAX-WS's dynamic client model is quite different from JAX-RPC's. Many of the changes acknowledge industry needs: 
      • It introduces message-oriented functionality.
      • It introduces dynamic asynchronous functionality.
    • JAX-WS also adds a dynamic server model, which JAX-RPC does not have.
  • MTOM (Message Transmission Optimization Mechanism) 
    JAX-WS, via JAXB, adds support for MTOM, the new attachment specification. Microsoft never bought into the SOAP with Attachments specification; but it appears that everyone supports MTOM, so attachment interoperability should become a reality.
  • The handler model 
    • The handler model has changed quite a bit from JAX-RPC to JAX-WS.
    • JAX-RPC handlers rely on SAAJ 1.2. JAX-WS handlers rely on the new SAAJ 1.3 specification.
In the remainder of this tip, we will discuss SOAP 1.2, XML/HTTP, the WS-I Basic Profiles, and Java 5. Each of the remaining five bullets above will be a separate tip in this series.
SOAP encoding
SOAP encoding has fallen out of favor in the web services community. It is not supported by the WS-I basic profile. So JAX-WS, as the latest incarnation of Java web services, has disallowed SOAP encoding. JAX-RPC supports SOAP encoding, so if you really must use SOAP encoded messages, stick with JAX-RPC.

SOAP 1.2

There is really not a lot of difference, from a programming model point of view, between SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2. As a Java programmer, the only place you will encounter these differences is when using the handlers, which we will cover in a future tip. SAAJ 1.3 has been updated to support SOAP 1.2.

XML/HTTP

Like the changes for SOAP 1.2, there is really not a lot of difference, from a programming model point of view, between SOAP/HTTP and XML/HTTP messages. As a Java programmer, the only place you will encounter these differences is when using the handlers, which we will cover in a future tip. The HTTP binding has its own handler chain and its own set of message context properties.

WS-I's basic profiles

JAX-RPC 1.1 supports WS-I's Basic Profile (BP) 1.0. Since that time, the WS-I folks have developed BP 1.1 (and the associated AP 1.0 and SSBP 1.0). These new profiles clarify some minor points, and more clearly define attachments. JAX-WS 2.0 supports these newer profiles. For the most part, the differences between them do not affect the Java programming model. The exception is attachments. WS-I not only cleared up some questions about attachments, but they also defined their own XML attachment type: wsi:swaRef.
Many people are confused by all these profiles. You will need a little history to clear up the confusion.
WS-I's first basic profile (BP 1.0) did a good job of clarifying the various specs. But it wasn't perfect. And support for SOAP with Attachments (Sw/A) in particular was still rather fuzzy. In their second iteration, the WS-I folks pulled attachments out of the basic profile - BP 1.1 - and fixed some of the things they missed the first time around. At that point they also added two mutually exclusive supplements to the basic profile: AP 1.0 and SSBP 1.0. AP 1.0 is the Attachment Profile which describes how to use Sw/A. SSBP 1.0 is the Simple SOAP Binding Profile, which describes a web services engine that does not support Sw/A (such as Microsoft's .NET). The remaining profiles that WS-I has and is working on build on top of those basic profiles.

Java 5

There are a number of changes to the Java language. JAX-WS relies on: annotations, generics, and executors. We will detail exactly how JAX-WS relies on this new functionality in follow-on tips. For information on these new features of Java, see the Java 5 link in

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

[Inside AdSense] Understanding your eCPM (effective cost per thousand impress...

-
"What is eCPM? What affects my eCPM? What can I do to earn a higher eCPM?" Effective cost per thousand impressions (eCPM) is the amount of revenue you can expect to earn from AdSense for every 1000 impressions shown on your site. Since eCPM helps you measure how well your ads are performing, we often hear questions from publishers about the factors that impact this metric and how it relates to their earnings. If you're using the new interface, you'll see that your reports show RPM (revenue per thousand impressions); RPM is just another term for eCPM, and it's calculated the same way, so we use these two terms interchangeably. To help provide some clarity, we're kicking off a two-part video series with more insights into how eCPM is calculated in order to help you maximize earnings. With the help of AdSense optimization specialist, Matthew Carpenter Arevalo, we'll show you the factors that affect eCPM, how to track user behavior and traffic patterns, and ...
Read more