W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2003

RE: eliminating <message>: a few additional thoughts

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:29:51 -0400
To: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1741A70D.CDAD98B9-ON85256D6A.006A0EDE-85256D6A.006B19C0@us.ibm.com>

Not sure I would agree... WS-I Basic Profile 1.0 has constrained SOAP1.1 
such that there must be but a single
child element of the SOAP:Body element. I am not convinced that this 
constraint will be changed for SOAP1.2.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-desc-request@w3.org wrote on 07/21/2003 03:13:22 PM:

> 
> > 
> > True. However, that's make the simple, what I believe to the 80-20
> > case harder. (See near the top of my original proposal and you'll
> > see what it looks like.)
> > 
> 
> I believe that in most cases the SOAP body will have more than one
> element. Example:
> 
> <xs:complexType name="FooBody">
>     <xs:sequence>
>         <xs:element name="Bar1" type="xs:string"/>
>         <xs:element name="Bar2" type="xs:positiveInteger"/>
>     </xs:sequence>
> </xs:complexType>
> 
> <xs:element name="FooElement" type="tns:FooBody"/>
> 
> <interface name="MyInterface">
>    <operation body="Foo">
>       <input body="tns:FooBody"/>
>    </operation>
> </interface>
> 
> Why do you see this example as the 20% of the cases? Using the element
> approach that would be...
> 
> <interface name="MyInterface">
>    <operation element="Foo">
>       <input element="tns:FooElement"/>
>    </operation>
> </interface>
> 
> Effectively this means that you have a wrapper element, called
> "FooElement" inside body.
> 
> I am not particular bothered which one is adopted at the end but I do
> have a small preference to the former :-)
> 
> > 
> > I'm still debating about how to do @body, but the optionality
> > is ok with me. I seem to recall that SOAP requires a non-empty
> > body, but I have seen specs which don't seem to follow that.
> > 
> 
> Actually the SOAP 1.2 spec allows non-empty bodies... (don't remember
> whether 1.1 allowed this)...
> 
> Section 5.3 of the spec:
> 
> <quote>
> The Body Element information item has:
> ...
> - Zero or most namespace qualified element information items in its
> [children] property.
> ...
> </quote>
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> .savas.
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 21 July 2003 15:30:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:25 GMT