Re: updated proposal on issue #144 - array metadata in SOAP Encoding

 Rich,
 your first suggestion is a good one, I think. This part of the
text was copied from the current editors' copy of the spec.
 To the second, for example: offset "1 1 1" is not as good as
position in the case of an array of size "2 * *" with four
members, because the members can be on positions [1 1 1], [1 1
2], [1 1 3], [1 1 4] or [1 1 1], [1 1 2], [1 2 1], [1 2 2] or any
other combinations.
 Even if there is only one asterisk, for example size="2 * 2",
it's easy to deserialize the array when we know the exact number
of the members and no explicit position interferes.
 To summarize - an asterisk in any position other than the first
brings difficulties during deserialization unless all members
specify their exact position, which is exactly what the text
requires. 8-)
 Take care,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Rich Salz wrote:

 > I like this.
 >
 > >  Array types derived from enc:Array MUST be restrictions of the
 > > enc:Array type and can be used to represent, for example, arrays
 > > limited to integers or arrays of some user-defined enumeration.
 >
 > How about "limited to integers, or arrays of a fixed size" so that the
 > examples show two different aspects?
 >
 > >  In case there is an asterisk on other than the first position,
 > > all the members in the array MUST specify their position.
 >
 > Perhaps add "(such as via the enc:offset or enc:position attributes)"
 > I say this because it's not immediately obvious that offset can be as
 > good as position for specifying position.  (See? :)
 >
 > 	/r$
 >

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 12:21:34 UTC