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

RE: RPC Style Issues (3)

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:03:06 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1CE2@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Interesting .. i encountered mixed support for the parameterOrder hint when i last looked at it (mid 2002) and wasn't sad to see it go in WSDL 1.2.  i'll have a quick go at feature-testing this pattern with the latest toolkits (especially JWSDP :-)
 
Paul

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Roberto Chinnici [mailto:Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM] 
	Sent: Tue 28/10/2003 19:19 
	To: Sanjiva Weerawarana 
	Cc: 'WS Description List' 
	Subject: Re: RPC Style Issues (3)
	
	


	Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
	>
	> Did WSDL 1.1 support distinguishing between these two signatures?
	
	It did.
	
	void f([out] int x) ==
	
	   <message name="fRequest"/>
	   <message name="fResponse">
	     <part name="x" type="xsd:int"/>
	   </message>
	   <operation name="f" parameterOrder="x">
	     <input message="tns:fRequest"/>
	     <output message="tns:fResponse"/>
	   </operation>
	
	int f() ==
	
	   <message name="fRequest"/>
	   <message name="fResponse">
	     <part name="x" type="xsd:int"/>
	   </message>
	   <operation name="f" parameterOrder="">
	     <input message="tns:fRequest"/>
	     <output message="tns:fResponse"/>
	   </operation>
	
	Same messages, different parameter orders.
	
	Roberto
	
	

Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 18:03:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT