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

Re: RPCTF: Issues 16 and 78

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:25:54 -0400
Message-ID: <3B5DCBC2.22FD7C53@east.Sun.COM>
To: Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Frank,

w/r/t issue 16, I think that the proposed rewording needs to be tightened up.

I would therefore offer a friendly amendment to your proposed
resolution. I suggest that:

?A SOAP RPC reply message MUST contain either a response or a fault in the
body. A SOAP RPC reply message MUST NOT contain both a response and a fault
in the body. In the case of a method with a void return type and no [out] or
[in,out] parameters, the response MUST be empty.?

should be rephrased as follows:

?A SOAP RPC reply message MUST contain either a response or a fault in the
body. A SOAP RPC reply message MUST NOT contain both a response and a fault
in the body. In the case of a method with a void return type and no [out] or
[in,out] parameters, the response body MUST be empty.?
				  ^^^^

Cheers,

Chris


Frank DeRose wrote:
> 
> 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. The RPC Task Force (RPCTF) is currently
> reviewing these issues and would like input from the SOAP community. Please
> review the discussion of issue 16 [1] and issue 78 [2] and provide any
> further feedback to the RPCTF. Thanks.
> 
> Frank DeRose
> TIBCO Software Inc.
> 3165 Porter Dr
> Palo Alto, CA 94303
> 650-846-5570 (vox)
> 650-846-1267 (fax)
> frankd@tibco.com
> www.tibco.com
> 
> [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
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 15:26:06 GMT

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