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, 16 Apr 2002 10:25:59 +0200 (CEST)
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
cc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204161023010.1964-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Henrik,
 would that be the same as having the old naming style and the 
old struct style and having one other parameter - an array? 
 If so, I believe this can be handled in the application level 
*quite* nicely, and all we could do is maybe publish a 
best-practices note about this.
 Please also see my subsequent reply to Pete's email. 8-)
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

 > 
 > 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">
 >       <r:result
 > xmlns:r="http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-rpc">...</r:result>
 >       <m:MyParams e:itemType="xs:int">
 >          <item>1</item>
 >          <item>56</item>
 >       </m:MyParams>
 >    </m:MyResponse>
 >  </s:Body>
 >  ...
 > 
 > Does this make sense - am I missing something obvious?
 > 
 > Henrik 
 > 
 > >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 Tuesday, 16 April 2002 04:26:13 GMT

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