W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2005

RE: New Issue RPC Style (and proposed fix)

From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:52:07 -0500
Message-ID: <39A72E1EBF03EB44AACFD8036D1489F92BDDDB@p02exm01.macromedia.com>
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
+1

 

Order should be preserved.

 

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Yalcinalp, Umit
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:46 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: New Issue RPC Style (and proposed fix)

 

As I am composing the RPC style example, I noticed that the order of the
elements in designating the signature is not preserved for the values of
the wrpc:signature which I believe is unintentionally missing. 

I recommend the following small fix for bullet numbered 2 in section
3.1.1: 
Previous: 

{2. Filter the elements of this list into two lists, the first one (L1)
comprising pairs whose t component is one of {#in, #out, #inout}, the
second (L2) pairs whose t component is #return.}

New: 
{2. Filter the elements of this list into two lists, the first one (L1)
comprising pairs whose t component is one of {#in, #out, #inout}, the
second (L2) pairs whose t component is #return. During the composition
of L1 and L2, the relative order of members in the original list MUST be
preserved.}

I think this should be non-contraversial. 
Cheers, 
--umit 
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 15:52:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:35 GMT