Aren rpc variants bad anyway?
No. They can be as well-defined and useful as the document/literal variant. The difference between rpc and document is that rpc SOAP messages have an additional container named after the remote procedure called. rpc/literal is RPC with named parameters, whereas rpc/encoded corresponds to positional parameters. rpc/encoded is prohibited by the WS-I Basic Profile. However, rpc/encoded is still popular, especially for scripting languages like perl, python or php. You should probably use SOAP::Lite for rpc/encoded web services. All the document/rpc literal/encoded discussion will cede with WSDL2.0: These variants are dropped in favour of an extensible operation style mechanism.
Related Questions
- What does the message "Bad MNT RPC: RPC: Authentication error; why = Client credential too weak" mean when I try to mount something from another machine?
- What does the message "BAD MNT RPC: RPC Authentication error; why = Invalid client credential" mean when I try to mount something from another machine?
- Artificial sweeteners; good or bad?
