- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:53:37 +0100 (CET)
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Just for the record, as Pete has already noticed, I have no
desire to keep partially transmitted arrays, I'm one of the
proponents of removing them. 8-)
I agree with your points completely, Pete.
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Pete Hendry wrote:
>
> > Multistructs can be modeled as structs with some members being
> > arrays, and that is IMO a very natural way of representing data
> > structures, which can contain more than one value under one
> > accessor.
> > Therefore I propose we remove the part of section 4.4.3 from the
> > second paragraph till the end of the section. The first paragraph
> > should stay, I think.
> >
>
>
> I would agree with this as it does not map easily. We
> support multistructs by using arrays. However, I think this
> argument should also be applied to sparse arrays. They
> could be implemented using structs of key/values and so do
> not need to be represented explicitely as they are
> currently (and it would be a lot easier to agree on the
> format if they were represented in this way!).
>
> Also, when using a mixture of literal and section 5, a
> struct in literal with an array looks like a multistruct in
> section 5. This can be confusing.
>
> Your argument is valid but goes against your desire to keep
> sparse arrays! They do not map to any programming language
> I know of and removing them does not remove any
> functionality from SOAP (as the application level can
> achieve the same).
>
> I would also like to drop multistructs as I don't think
> they provide anything that structs and arrays together
> don't already provide.
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2001 07:53:39 UTC