RE: [soapbuilders] FEEDBACK REQUESTED - Issues regarding Array encoding for SOAP 1.2

Glen, Jacek, et. al.,

We support them 100%, p-t-a and sparse array.

In seems to me that many do not want the pain of dealing with the issue.
This is making the spec conform to implementations as opposed to conforming
implementations to the spec, IMO.

I'd like to see responses that clearly define why p-t-a and sparse array is
a bad idea in the context of architecture and not implementation.

-Matt Long
Phalanx Systems, LLC


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@macromedia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:45 AM
> To: 'soapbuilders@groups.yahoo.com'; 'SOAP@discuss.develop.com';
> 'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'; 'soap-dev@xml.apache.org'
> Subject: [soapbuilders] FEEDBACK REQUESTED - Issues regarding Array
> encoding for SOAP 1.2
>
>
>
> [If you reply to this, please do so on xml-dist-app@w3.org]
>
> Hi folks!
>
> The XML Protocol WG would like to solicit some feedback with
> regard to array
> encoding.  The particular issues (from our issues list) related
> to this are
> #s 144 [1] and 161 [2], with Jacek's latest proposal at [3].  I'll briefly
> summarize the issues, and then present our current list of
> potential options
> in hopes that you who are actually using and implementing this stuff can
> help to guide us in making some decisions.
>
> ISSUE 144 - the basic problem here is that the arrayType element
> in SOAP 1.1
> blurs several pieces of information (the type of array elements and the
> dimensionality/size of the array) into one string which then must be
> "micro-parsed" in some fairly complicated ways.  The ensuing
> discussion also
> questioned the utility of sparse/Partially-Transmitted (P.T.) arrays.
>
> ISSUE 161 - this is essentially a bad word choice in the spec, where array
> members are spec'ed as "independent elements" when in fact they aren't.
>
> At a recent meeting, we decided that the group liked the bulk of Jacek's
> proposal, which solves issue 144 by splitting out the arrayType attribute
> into two (arraySize and itemType) and also deals with issue 161 (by
> replacing the offending wording).
>
> The point on which we decided more discussion was required
> involved whether
> to eliminate sparse arrays entirely.  Essentially some felt that
> P.T. arrays
> were too complicated for the base spec, and if you wanted to do, for
> instance, a sparse update of a large database, you could do it by
> sending an
> array of offset/value pairs.  Others felt the sparse array use-cases were
> compelling and we should definitely leave them in the spec.
>
> So, the questions to you are these:
>
> 1) Do you use P.T./sparse arrays currently?  If so, what are the scenarios
> (array updates, avoiding sending lots of nulls, etc...)?
>
> 2) Would it bother you to see them go away in SOAP 1.2?
>
> Thanks very much in advance for any information you can provide.
>
> --Glen
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x144
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x161
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0186.html
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
> Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
> Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/75YKVC/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/W6uqlB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
> discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Received on Thursday, 13 December 2001 12:38:41 UTC