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

Re: Issue 16: methods with void return type and no out params

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:36:24 -0400
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010525113624.F6431@jibboom.w3.org>
* Mark A. Jones <jones@research.att.com> [2001-05-25 10:58-0400]
> Isn't it possible that there will be intermediaries in the return path
> of a SOAP RPC call that may want to insert headers or otherwise process
> the return message?  If we don't always return a valid message, this
> would be a problem for behavior 1.
[..]
> > 1.      return HTTP 204 No Response

My understanding was that Frank's solution did not allow behavior 1:

* Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com> [2001-05-24 19:37-0700]
> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION
> The last sentence of Section 7.1 reads:
> 
> "Because a result indicates success and a fault indicates failure, it is an
> error for the method response to contain both a result and a fault."
> 
> I suggest replacing this sentence with the following sentences:
> 
> “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.”

An XMLP/SOAP message must be returned in any case. Behavior 1
(returning an HTTP 204 No Response) would be an optimization of the
HTTP binding. It would work, at best, for an empty message (i.e. a
message with an empty body).

In this proposal, the response has an empty element in the body form a
void return type and no out parameters.

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Friday, 25 May 2001 11:36:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT