RE: issue: optional parts in <message>?

Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] writes:
>> But in the end  a request message is just that, a message. Nothing
>> prevents a stub generator from interpreting the infosets for request
>> and response messages and come up with an RPC view of an
>> operation, if it so wishes. Binding information is not needed at all,
>> as long as the type system used to describe messages is unambiguous
>> (as opposed to being reinterpreted in substantially different ways
>> by different bindings).
>
>I disagree: if you have a message who's complexType is say
>purchaseOrder, you wouldn't want the RPC-style stub generator
>to expand out the top level children of that element into 
>different arguments would you? I don't think so .. rather you
>would want the purchaseOrder schema to be mapped to a business
>object in whatever the language you're in and to get a method
>which had one of those as an argument. So you would have to 
>know whether to expand the top level type or not. 

Doesn't the parameterOrder AII tell you what should be extracted as
top-level children for an RPC-style binding? It should be able to do
that whether the message is described in a WSDL EII or in XML Schema.

--Jeff

Received on Friday, 3 May 2002 19:21:01 UTC