- From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:43:10 -0400
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- CC: "Marc J. Hadley" <marc.hadley@Sun.COM>, Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
<em>+1</em> ;-) Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > I strongly support Marc's proposal which seems very consistent with the > general rules for encoding a response - from 7.1: > > * A method response is modelled as a struct. > > * The method response is viewed as a single struct > containing an accessor for the return value and each > [out] or [in/out] parameter. The first accessor is > the return value followed by the parameters in the > same order as in the method signature. > > * Each parameter accessor has a name corresponding > to the name of the parameter and type corresponding > to the type of the parameter. The name of the return > value accessor is not significant. Likewise, the > name of the struct is not significant. However, a > convention is to name it after the method name > with the string "Response" appended. > > A logical conclusion of this is that *if* there are no [out] or [in,out] > parameters then the struct is empty. That is, the body contains a > single, empty response element whose name is not significant but may > follow the "Response" naming convention like for example: > > <S:Envelope xmlns:S='http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope'> > <S:Body> > <F:fooResponse xmlns:F="http://entry-name-space"/> > </S:Body> > </S:Envelope> > > Henrik > > >Or to put it another way, I think we should say: > > > >(from [2]) > >"In the case of an RPC with a void return type and no [out] or > >[in,out] parameters, the response element MUST be empty." > > > >rather than: > > > >(from [1]) > >"In the case of a method with a void return type and no [out] > >or [in,out] parameters, the response element will be empty, in > >which case it MAY be omitted. This will cause the Body to be > >empty. If the Envelope contains an empty Body and does not > >contain a Header, the entire Envelope MAY be omitted."
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 12:43:18 UTC