Re: counterproposal on issue #144

 Hi Alan, Murali,
 I disagree that using your own format means using different
encoding style. Already there are proposals for serialization of
maps and lists and all that which are built on top of SOAP
Encoding. Lists are arrays with a special Schema type, Maps are
arrays (with a special Schema type) of key-value pairs (agan a
special Schema type):
  Type List extends type soap-enc:Array
  Type Map extends type soap-enc:Array, values are of type Pair
  Type Pair is a SOAP Encoding struct with the members key and
 The only problem might be that these types have not come from
Microsoft et al. (SOAP 1.1) or from W3C (SOAP 1.2). IIRC they are
in an Apache namespace.
 It also seems to me that maps and such are used much more often
than partially transmitted arrays. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, 'Alan Kent' wrote:

 > > >>>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)?
 > Alan

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 05:10:57 UTC