RE: counterproposal on issue #144

Agreed. One can use their own format and still fit into SOAP encoding style.

But the fact that it is a user defined format still remains. Not everyone
can understand it.

Extending your arguments given for Map, one can also say that the encoding
format given for SOAP compound type is good enough for representing arrays
as well. You don't need a special format for arrays. 

So, why are we providing a special format for arrays?

I certainly don't want SOAP to go down the path of defining encoding formats
for each data structure known(Maps, Trees, Lists) etc. Where is the end?

But, it seems somewhat incomplete to define a format for arrays and point
users to look somewhere else for treatment of ptas and sparse arrays. I am
not sure we are pushing these out b'cos we think these are not important or
we think there is no reasonable way to represent them without adding
unnecessary complexity. 

However, I must admit that I would rather like to see the support for ptas
and sparse dropped(as in your current proposal) than to say we support it
and not provide any meaningful markers (as in your earlier proposal) for the
receving end to understand a sparse array.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jacek Kopecky []
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 2:11 AM
To: 'Alan Kent'
Subject: 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
 > > format, under your own encoding style which translates into
 > > 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 15:49:52 UTC