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

Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal

From: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:47:16 -0700
Message-ID: <3CC735F4.5000701@netscape.com>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
CC: Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
I have been trying to think of alternatives, myself.

How about a new SOAP encoding type (like a struct or array) which is an 
extra child of the RPC call that identifies the return.

Relying on schema types is no worse than the call itself, which must be 
identified as an array or a struct (or derived from those) before the 
call can be decoded.  Requiring it to have a specific QName would 
violate the rules of an array, I think, for which it is also useful.

Languages which have no returns can ignore it and it has all the normal 
characteristics of an out parameter.

Also, an array return can use this as a better way to positively 
identify the return, even in the presence of a void return, in which 
case it is ommitted.  In the array case, it would not use a QName, but 
some positional indication such as an index or immediately preceeding 
the actual return.

Ray Whitmer
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 18:47:26 UTC

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