RE: RPC Style Issues (3)

• From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
• Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:03:06 -0000
• To: <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
• Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1CE2@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>

Interesting .. i encountered mixed support for the parameterOrder hint when i last looked at it (mid 2002) and wasn't sad to see it go in WSDL 1.2.  i'll have a quick go at feature-testing this pattern with the latest toolkits (especially JWSDP :-)
 
Paul

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: Roberto Chinnici [mailto:Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM] 
 Sent: Tue 28/10/2003 19:19 
 To: Sanjiva Weerawarana 
 Cc: 'WS Description List' 
 Subject: Re: RPC Style Issues (3)
 
 


 Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
 >
 > Did WSDL 1.1 support distinguishing between these two signatures?
 
 It did.
 
 void f([out] int x) ==
 
    <message name="fRequest"/>
    <message name="fResponse">
      <part name="x" type="xsd:int"/>
    </message>
    <operation name="f" parameterOrder="x">
      <input message="tns:fRequest"/>
      <output message="tns:fResponse"/>
    </operation>
 
 int f() ==
 
    <message name="fRequest"/>
    <message name="fResponse">
      <part name="x" type="xsd:int"/>
    </message>
    <operation name="f" parameterOrder="">
      <input message="tns:fRequest"/>
      <output message="tns:fResponse"/>
    </operation>
 
 Same messages, different parameter orders.
 
 Roberto
 
 

Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 18:03:07 UTC