Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: >>Same messages, different parameter orders. >> >> > >While your interpretation of parameterOrder="" seems reasonable, >I can't find anything in the WSDL 1.1 spec that implies this >usage. Of course, WSDL 1.1 left a lot for the imagination ;-). > >If its parameterOrder we desire let's make that proposal. After >all, its well-known already (well hated IMO, but that's my view)! > >Sanjiva. >p.s.: Its hard to hold 4 arguments at once with the same subject; >so I've taken the liberty of clarifying the subjects .. hope its >ok ;-). > > > > I point out that you might have missed the thread if indeed your desire is to talk about parameterorder. A convention for introducing parameter order have been made. Please find it in [1]. It is not to introduce parameterOrder, but to introduce a convention based on the order of elements in the schema. As a matter of fact, at last week's concall I presented these rules. We have agreed that these 4 rules were reasonable provided that they will be in two different buckets, one for schema and one for conventions. A proposal for that is in [2] which needs to be updated to reflect this. I still have an action item to integrate the rules in [1] to my writeup in [2]. Please stay tuned. --umit [1]. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/0058.html [2]. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/0057.html -- Umit Yalcinalp Consulting Member of Technical Staff ORACLE Phone: +1 650 607 6154 Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 14:51:29 UTC