W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195)

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 01:11:31 +0200 (CEST)
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204090110090.12891-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Noah, 
 this is copied from the struct case - in case the method does
not have a return value at all (the return value is void as 
opposed to just null) it'll not be there (not even as a null).
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

 > Jacek Kopecky writes:
 > 
 > >> it will always be there, even if null (marked with xsi:null="true"
 > 
 > That would make sense, but now I am confused.  The text quoted below 
 > seemed specifically to indicate that it would not be there:
 > 
 > >> The return value outbound edge MUST NOT be 
 > >> present if the return value of the procedure is void
 > 
 > What am I missing?
 > 
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
 > IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
 > One Rogers Street
 > Cambridge, MA 02142
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
 > 04/08/2002 05:57 PM
 > 
 >  
 >         To:     Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
 >         cc:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
 >         Subject:        Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195)
 > 
 > 
 >  Noah,
 >  it is impossible to omit some members in an array. Therefore, if 
 > the first member is meant to be the return value (and we know 
 > that from the signature), it will always be there, even if null 
 > (marked with xsi:null="true"). If the text needs some rewording 
 > to show that, I won't object to it. 8-)
 > 
 >  Anyway, the quoted text will be gone if we accept my full
 > proposal.  8-)
 > 
 >                    Jacek Kopecky
 > 
 >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM wrote:
 > 
 >  > Jacek Kopecky writes:
 >  > 
 >  > >> * In the array representation of the response, 
 >  > >> the return value outbound edge is the first 
 >  > >> member of the array if the return value of the 
 >  > >> procedure is non-void. The return value outbound 
 >  > >> edge MUST NOT be present if the return value of 
 >  > >> the procedure is void, therefore the first edge 
 >  > >> is the first [out] or [in/out] parameter.
 >  > 
 >  > Is it intentional that when modeling a function with positional [out] 
 >  > arguments, we cannot reliably determine whether the return value is 
 > void 
 >  > unless we have external knowledge of the method signature and the 
 > number 
 >  > of arguments expected?  For a function taking a variable number of 
 >  > arguments, it would seem to be impossible to determine in general 
 > whether 
 >  > the return value was void.
 >  > 
 >  > ------------------------------------------------------------------
 >  > Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
 >  > IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
 >  > One Rogers Street
 >  > Cambridge, MA 02142
 >  > ------------------------------------------------------------------
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
Received on Monday, 8 April 2002 19:11:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT