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

Re: RPC Mapping

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:23:55 -0000
Message-ID: <00cb01c1b0bd$02ff5540$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
OK, but what about the fact that the [in] params 'will be' in the order of
the method sig but the [out] params 'SHOULD' be in the order of the method
sig?

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>; "XML Protocol Discussion"
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 4:18 PM
Subject: RE: RPC Mapping



As we now have a better way of indicating the "result" by using a Qname
from our namespace there is no need to say anything special about it. I
would just write the part "The return value accessor SHOULD be first"
out of the text.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:marting@develop.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 07:35
>To: XML Protocol Discussion
>Subject: RPC Mapping
>
>
>In the editors copy of Part 2[1], section 4.1[2] states of
>[in] and [in/out] parameters in the request that;
>
> 'These appear in the same order as in the procedure or method
>signature.'
>
>For [out] and [in/out] parameters in the response it states;
>
> 'The return value accessor SHOULD be first, followed by the
>accessors for the parameters which SHOULD be in the same order
>as they appear in the procedure or method signature.'
>
>Why the inconsistency? I think we should say the same thing
>for both request and response. I don't have a *strong* opinion
>about whether we should enforce order or not, but I'd tend to
>lean toward lining up the response description with the
>description of the request.
>
>Gudge
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.xml
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.xml#IDAGG5CF
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 11:24:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT