- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:16:53 +0100 (CET)
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
- cc: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Rich, Gudge,
do you mean SOAP Encoding instead of SOAP RPC rules? What do you
mean by SOAP fault being transmitted using SOAP RPC rules?
Anyway, I also like the flat approach (and the latest with
'value' and 'sub' differenciation) best, but I think I could live
with the fully hierarchical approach as well. 8-)
I mean, the flat approach results in more pleasing XML (IMO),
that's why I like it. With the differenciation between 'value'
and 'sub' (or however we call it) the hierarchy is still
apparent.
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Rich Salz wrote:
>
> > Err, and why is this more difficult with the attribute based approach. I can
> > just as easily map an XML attribute to the ORPCTHAT as I can an XML
> > element...
>
> I was being too subtle, perhaps. I meant that if the SOAP fault uses
> XML attributes, then a SOAP fault can't easily be transmitted using SOAP
> RPC rules. (Just like DCOM uses ORPCTHAT to convey exception
> information back to the client.)
>
> The rest of it -- hackiness of nested elements, parsing awkwardness, etc
> -- is just opinion, so we can note it and move on.
> /r$
>
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 03:16:56 UTC