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

RE: Publication of the first W3C Working Drafts of SOAP Version 1.2 and of the XML Protocol Abstract Model

From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:03:03 -0700
Message-ID: <C3729BBB6099B344834634EC67DE4AE102623AAD@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Thanks.  It should be clarified, and I believe that the protocol WG has
this on its open issues list.  You can find some extensive discussion of
the options on the SOAP Builders mailing list, for example, in tthe
thread containing
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/1129 .

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Cunnings [mailto:cunnings@lectrosonics.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 9:56 AM
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: Re: Publication of the first W3C Working Drafts of SOAP Version
1.2 and of the XML Protocol Abstract Model


Hello,

After reading the 1.2 version spec for SOAP, I wish to renew 
previous concerns about Section 7.1 "RPC responses" [1]. 
Specifically, there seems to be no provision for the case of method 
signatures with a void return. As it stands, the first accessor in the 
response is assumed to contain or reference a return value. The 
situation results in confusion when the method signature contains 
a void return and one or more "out" parameters... the first accessor 
is treated as the return, rather than as the first "out" param.

This area needs clarification, as real world implementation 
experience has proven it to be troublesome.

The question: what is the representation for a response with a void 
return, possibly with "out" or "in,out" parameters?

The matter was placed on the the XMLP issues list and has id 
"16". [2]

Thanks,

RC

[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-
app/2000Aug/0002.html

[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x16
Received on Friday, 13 July 2001 17:03:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:02 GMT