Different AXL version compatability

Version 1
    This document was generated from CDN thread

    Created by: ChocolateBox Pox on 19-04-2013 07:20:50 AM
    Hello,

    I have downloaded the WSDL from our Call Manager 7 system and after a long struggle I've finally manged to compile it and get a .NET website to pull infomation from the CCM.

    Now I want to write a generic application that can be applied to any recent Call Manager system however I'm a bit confused as to what will work on what version. Will an application using the CCM 7 WSDL be able to work with a CCM 8 system? And will an application using the v8 WSDL work in a v7 system as long as it doesn't use any v8 specific functionality? I see there is a note on the Cisco website that says that v10 will not support AXL requests from the v7 WSDL. Do I have to write seperate code for each Call Manager version or can I write something that will work with all of them?

    Subject: RE: Different AXL version compatability
    Replied by: Darin Burleigh on 29-04-2013 02:34:04 PM
    First you'll need to review AXL Versioning page: http://developer.cisco.com/web/axl-developer/axl-versioning
    Each CM system supports the 3 previous APIs. If you look at the chart, you'll see that the 7.0 schema is supported by CM version from 7.0 up to 8.5.
    If you don't have to support  CM 9.0, then you could write your code for the 7.0 schema. You also have to use specify 7.0 in the SOAP header.
    Obviously, this approach won't work when one of your systems is upgraded to 9.0 or higher.
    So, eventually you'll have to write code that handles different version. The Versioning page above has a link to "what's new and changed". You'll have to review that (or compare the WSDL files) to see all the differences.
    There were lots of changes between 7.1 and 8.0. Some of them were just capitalization. For instance, the operation 'getCSS' in 7.0 was changed to 'getCss' in 8.0.
     

    Subject: RE: Different AXL version compatability
    Replied by: ChocolateBox Pox on 01-05-2013 09:27:15 AM
    Thanks, I hadn't found that link before!