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

Re: Rewording of section 4.1.2 based upon resolution of issue 195

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:52:39 +0100
Message-ID: <3CE3D5C7.4020804@sun.com>
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 GMT

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