W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2002

RE: issue: optional parts in <message>?

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 16:16:34 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC106E152DC@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] writes:
>> But in the end  a request message is just that, a message. Nothing
>> prevents a stub generator from interpreting the infosets for request
>> and response messages and come up with an RPC view of an
>> operation, if it so wishes. Binding information is not needed at all,
>> as long as the type system used to describe messages is unambiguous
>> (as opposed to being reinterpreted in substantially different ways
>> by different bindings).
>
>I disagree: if you have a message who's complexType is say
>purchaseOrder, you wouldn't want the RPC-style stub generator
>to expand out the top level children of that element into 
>different arguments would you? I don't think so .. rather you
>would want the purchaseOrder schema to be mapped to a business
>object in whatever the language you're in and to get a method
>which had one of those as an argument. So you would have to 
>know whether to expand the top level type or not. 

Doesn't the parameterOrder AII tell you what should be extracted as
top-level children for an RPC-style binding? It should be able to do
that whether the message is described in a WSDL EII or in XML Schema.

--Jeff
Received on Friday, 3 May 2002 19:21:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT