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

Re: Encoding: multistructs, generic compound types

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:24:20 +0000
Message-ID: <3C2078E4.6000509@sun.com>
To: Pete Hendry <peter.hendry@capeclear.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org, Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
+1 on all points.


Pete Hendry wrote:

>>  Multistructs can be modeled as structs with some members being
>> arrays, and that is IMO a very natural way of representing data
>> structures, which can contain more than one value under one
>> accessor.
>>  Therefore I propose we remove the part of section 4.4.3 from the
>> second paragraph till the end of the section. The first paragraph
>> should stay, I think.
> I would agree with this as it does not map easily. We support 
> multistructs by using arrays. However, I think this argument should also 
> be applied to sparse arrays. They could be implemented using structs of 
> key/values and so do not need to be represented explicitely as they are 
> currently (and it would be a lot easier to agree on the format if they 
> were represented in this way!).

> Your argument is valid but goes against your desire to keep sparse 
> arrays! They do not map to any programming language I know of and 
> removing them does not remove any functionality from SOAP (as the 
> application level can achieve the same).

> I would also like to drop multistructs as I don't think they provide 
> anything that structs and arrays together don't already provide.
> Pete

Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2001 06:27:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:17 UTC