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: Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:06:56 -0700
To: "Andrew Layman" <andrewl@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFELJFDBDMKCBMENENFOCEAKEBAA.frankd@tibco.com>
Bob,

Issues 16 and 78 were scheduled for discussion at the last face-to-face
meeting of the WG, but this discussion was postponed due to lengthy
discussion of more pressing issues. I, too, hope that the WG can get around
to 16 and 78 sometime in the near future.

Bob, I know you have been tracking the discussion of 16 and 78 on this list,
but if anyone else is interested in these issues, they should read not just
the message thread cited by Andrew below, but should also take a look at the
threads on issues 16 [1] and 78 [2] on this list.

F

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001May/0328.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jun/0110.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Andrew Layman
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 2:03 PM
> 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
>
>
> 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 Monday, 16 July 2001 15:06:07 GMT

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