- From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:13:22 +0100
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>
> True. However, that's make the simple, what I believe to the 80-20
> case harder. (See near the top of my original proposal and you'll
> see what it looks like.)
>
I believe that in most cases the SOAP body will have more than one
element. Example:
<xs:complexType name="FooBody">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="Bar1" type="xs:string"/>
<xs:element name="Bar2" type="xs:positiveInteger"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:element name="FooElement" type="tns:FooBody"/>
<interface name="MyInterface">
<operation body="Foo">
<input body="tns:FooBody"/>
</operation>
</interface>
Why do you see this example as the 20% of the cases? Using the element
approach that would be...
<interface name="MyInterface">
<operation element="Foo">
<input element="tns:FooElement"/>
</operation>
</interface>
Effectively this means that you have a wrapper element, called
"FooElement" inside body.
I am not particular bothered which one is adopted at the end but I do
have a small preference to the former :-)
>
> I'm still debating about how to do @body, but the optionality
> is ok with me. I seem to recall that SOAP requires a non-empty
> body, but I have seen specs which don't seem to follow that.
>
Actually the SOAP 1.2 spec allows non-empty bodies... (don't remember
whether 1.1 allowed this)...
Section 5.3 of the spec:
<quote>
The Body Element information item has:
...
- Zero or most namespace qualified element information items in its
[children] property.
...
</quote>
I hope this helps.
.savas.
Received on Monday, 21 July 2003 15:13:45 UTC