- From: Tyler Close <tjclose@yahoo.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 11:09:34 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>, Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
- Cc: Alan Kent <ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au>, SOAP <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
At 03:44 PM 9/21/01 +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote: >SOAP doesn't even have native maps (associative >arrays) and I value maps much higher than "diff" arrays. Given this, why are sparse arrays in the spec? They seem like a very low value feature that create a disproportionate amount of complexity and confusion. I read a previous post where it was said sparse arrays are useful for handling legacy RPC systems. If this is the only reason, then it seems like a poor idea to stick them right in the main SOAP spec. I think they would be better treated as just another application specific data structure (ie: "Generic Compound Type"). At best, the sparse array format should be put in an appendix for "The recommended way to encode type X from legacy system Y." Specific application areas are full of custom types, so it seems unusual to give sparse arrays special treatment. Putting sparse arrays in the main SOAP spec forces all SOAP users to contend with complexity flowing from one application type. Good design does not let complexity flow in this direction. Tyler _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Sunday, 23 September 2001 11:12:19 UTC