Re: counterproposal on issue #144

On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 04:33:28PM -0800, Murali Janakiraman wrote:
> > From Jacke
> >  So yes, removing ptas from SOAP Encoding is a viable solution,
> > after all. I think I can propose that as a counterproposal to my
> > original proposal (ooops, too much proposing here). It means
> > making array serialization rules about half as complex with no
> > philosophical issues.
> >> From Alan
> >>***YES!*** Exactly what I had in mind. Keep the spec simple with
> >>absolutely no loss of power. You just do p-t-a's differently.
> >>>Murali
>  Yes but with one small difference. You have got to do it using your own
> format, under your own encoding style which translates into interoperability
> issues. 
> Murali

I agree p-t-a *should* be defined somewhere (SOAP or otherwise). p-t-a's
are not the only more advanced data structure however. There are maps,
linked lists, trees, etc. Maybe there is room for a separate
document defining the recommended interoperable way to represent
various data structures in SOAP.

I would *tend* to leave it out of the core SOAP spec, if only to keep
SOAP moving along. The discussion could be long of the best way to do it.
Are people in practice using p-t-a's and not using other data structures
(maps, lists etc)?


Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 20:13:03 UTC