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

RE: Issue with soap-rpc:result

From: Tim Ewald <tjewald@develop.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:28:42 -0500
To: "'XMLDISTAPP'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000501c1b4c4$aece4d30$6e85413f@northpole>
>  1) that the dispatch is based on the QName of the first 
> immediate child of Body, and that its local name is based on the 
> procedure's name;

I know you'll tell me this is an issue for the WSDL group, but you have
to be careful here. One of the problems with WSDL is that it wants to
create the notion of portTypes (interfaces) and operations. Most
traditinal RPC and ORPC models support this, and the interface ID and
operation ID are send in a request message along with the input
parameters. If the SOAP RPC model mandates that dispatching is based on
the QName of the first immediate child of the body, what happens if two
interfaces have operations of the same name?

ICowboy::Draw
IArtist::Draw

Do the two interfaces have to be defined in different namespaces? Is
that only necessary when there is a method with the same name?

The problem with delegating this issue to the WSDL working group is that
they won't be able to change the SOAP RPC rules. If there is going to be
a SOAP RPC model and we want to support the notion of interfaces as
collections of operations, this should be addressed at the protocol
level and not solely at the description level.

To that end, I'd love to see attributes for annotating a Body with an
interface's and operation's QName specifically for dispatching. This
could be done in the WSDL working group, but only if the SOAP RPC model
doesn't mandate that dispatching be accomplished based solely on the
QName of the first child of the body.

Thanks,

Tim-
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 14:30:23 GMT

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