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

Re: RPC Mapping

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 10:34:59 -0000
Message-ID: <001f01c1b155$6e0d5ab0$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I'm just reporting what is in the current WD[1] ( also in the editor's
copy[2], although now in Infoset form )

I don't have a particular problem with the RPC mapping per se, the
description basically says that given;

    void Add ( [in] long x, [in] long y, [out] long* sum );

it maps to

struct Add
{
    long x;
    long y;
}

and

struct SomeName
{
    long sum;
}

and that the rules for serializing the top level constructs of such structs
are the same as those found in section 3.

I'd just like to sort out the inconsistency between [in] and [out]
parameters. If others want to gut the whole section, that's a completely
seperate issue.

Gudge

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#N867
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.xml#IDAIWPUB

----- Original Message -----
From: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
To: <marting@develop.com>
Cc: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: RPC Mapping


> >> These appear in the same order as in the procedure or method signature
>
> What method signature?  Isn't this verging on something that belongs in
> the WSDL spec rather than SOAP?  In the SOAP rec, I think we can say
> things like:  A SOAP RPC represents its arguments as a struct;  the order
> of the arguments is considered significant (in/out arguments appear
> first..., or whatever)."
>
> I think one could even go as far as:
>
> NOTE:  for interoperability, when binding SOAP RPC to programming language
> API's, it is customary to map the arguments of such language API's in
> order to the respective arguments in the SOAP RPC call.  Similarly,
> description languages (such as WSDL) customarily document the arguments in
> the order that they appear in the message.
>
> ...or some such.   I'm not sure that note really belongs, but that's about
> as far as I'd go.   I don't see how we can make a normative reference to a
> "method signature", unless we want to spell out a model for one (I suppose
> we could go that route too).  Does this make sense?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 02/08/2002 10:35 AM
>
>
>         To:     "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>         cc:
>         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 Saturday, 9 February 2002 05:35:53 GMT

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