W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2001

RE: Proposal for naming the SOAP RPC return value

From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@Allegis.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:53:43 -0700
Message-ID: <753B28EF1C2DD411AF1C00B0D0202CB5014D4320@mailhost.hq.allegis.com>
To: "'jacek@idoox.com'" <jacek@idoox.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@idoox.com]

<snip/>

>  An example of an envelope with a successful RPC response of a
> void procedure with no [in/out] or [out] parameters:
> 
> <env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope">
>   <env:Body>
>     <m:SetDateResponse
>          env:encodingStyle="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-encoding"
>          xmlns:m="http://example.org/2001/06/clock" >
>     </m:SetDateResponse>
>   </env:Body>
> </env:Envelope>

The answer to my question seems trivially obvious to me, but just to be
sure, the example you cite of an RPC response for a void procedure with no
[in/out] or [out] parameters could also have been represented as:

<env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope">
   <env:Body>
     <m:SetDateResponse
          env:encodingStyle="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-encoding"
          xmlns:m="http://example.org/2001/06/clock" />
   </env:Body>
</env:Envelope>

Correct? (I just want to make sure no one is proposing precluding this
abbreviated syntax.)
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 19:08:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT