Re: proposal to have sequential / grouped messages in soap output

olivier Thereaux wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 14:39 , Chris. wrote:
>> I firmly believe that we need to do away with errorlist and 
>> warninglist in favor of a general messagelist
> Please re-read my original message: this is *precisely* what I was 
> suggesting for the sequential output.
Sorry, for not being more clear.  I realized that this is what you said, 
but I was responding to Karim -- who's response reverted back to 
errorlist and messagelist.
> I also read interesting ideas for a "real" grouped output. That's great.
> But that means we have a lot of choices:
> 1) Should the SOAP output have a real sequential mode, including 
> error, warnings and info messages as they happen?
> I believe "yes"
> 2) Should the SOAP output do away with its current format (grouping 
> errors together, warnings together)?
> This is unsure. On the one hand, it's not great, on the other hand, 
> killing it would break existing implementations
In a previous post, I noted that messages can reference the previous or 
next message.  This becomes problematic when the previous or next 
message is of a different type (error, warning, or info) and is, 
currently stored in another group.  How do you reliably find that 
related message which may reference a wholly different line number, etc?

I believe the *only* acceptable solution that works with the current 
messages, is one that indicates the relative order of the messages no 
matter what their type -- otherwise I'm giving my users explanations 
that misleads them.  I can think of ways of accomplishing this while 
keeping the existing structure, but these are basically hacks or 
duplicating information
> 3) Should the SOAP output have a "real" grouped output, with all 
> messages of the same type grouped together?
> Not necessarily. People building apps on top of the API can make the 
> grouping themselves. That said it's easy to make it happen in the 
> validator's templates.
> The "imperfect but backward compatible" solution would be the one I 
> suggested in the first message of this thread.
As I mention above, I'm not sure that this is possible if you want to 
keep the sequential ordering of all, intermixed messages.
> A better, possibly more disruptive solution would be to
> * deprecate the current soap output (keeping it as a default for the 
> next release)
> * build a new version (from scratch if necessary, although reusing the 
> work done in the w3c validator, as well as Henri's[1], would be a good 
> idea) of the API
> * find a parameter to trigger one or the other
Obviously I've voiced my vote for #3 (though I 'm not sure that I 
understand #2).
> [1]
Woah!  I need to look into this....
> Henri, would you be interested in merging the two outputs together?

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 04:01:16 UTC