- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:52:39 +0100
- To: Ray Whitmer <ray@jhax.net>
- CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Ray Whitmer wrote: > > Please note that in the new wording, I have included in [] extra > sentences that contain clarifications that were only briefly mentioned > but I think might be useful. I will leave it up to the editors whether > the extra sentences should be included or not, but if anyone thinks the > sentences are not true, we should probably discuss them, because it was > not clear to me why we spent so much time making it possible to identify > non-void returns in structs when other gaping holes were left up to the > knowledge of the calling application of the call signature. > <snip/> > New wording: > > An RPC response is modeled as a struct where parameter access is by name > or as an array where parameter access is by position. [The SOAP > encoding specification defines no way to directly determine whether the > response is modeled as a struct or as an array.] > Doesn't examination of the response do that: itemType present - array, arraySize present - array, all of the child elements the same name - array otherwise a struct or (perhaps) a generic compound type ? Marc. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2002 11:53:17 UTC