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

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

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:56:31 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D07161054@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: "Ray Whitmer" <rayw@netscape.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

FWIW (and take this with a grain of salt). I can live quite happily
without support for positional [in][out] parameters but just as a
proposal - if we want to go there then maybe we can get around the
current problem by saying that we *always* use a struct with or without
a "result" (status quo) and then model positional parameters as an array
within the struct:

 <s:Body s:encodingStyle="http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-encoding">
   <m:MyResponse xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/foo/bar">
      <m:MyParams e:itemType="xs:int">

Does this make sense - am I missing something obvious?


>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.
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 18:56:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:19 UTC