- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 01:11:31 +0200 (CEST)
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Noah, this is copied from the struct case - in case the method does not have a return value at all (the return value is void as opposed to just null) it'll not be there (not even as a null). Best regards, Jacek Kopecky Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) http://www.systinet.com/ On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > Jacek Kopecky writes: > > >> it will always be there, even if null (marked with xsi:null="true" > > That would make sense, but now I am confused. The text quoted below > seemed specifically to indicate that it would not be there: > > >> The return value outbound edge MUST NOT be > >> present if the return value of the procedure is void > > What am I missing? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 > IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com> > 04/08/2002 05:57 PM > > > To: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> > cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) > > > Noah, > it is impossible to omit some members in an array. Therefore, if > the first member is meant to be the return value (and we know > that from the signature), it will always be there, even if null > (marked with xsi:null="true"). If the text needs some rewording > to show that, I won't object to it. 8-) > > Anyway, the quoted text will be gone if we accept my full > proposal. 8-) > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM wrote: > > > Jacek Kopecky writes: > > > > >> * In the array representation of the response, > > >> the return value outbound edge is the first > > >> member of the array if the return value of the > > >> procedure is non-void. The return value outbound > > >> edge MUST NOT be present if the return value of > > >> the procedure is void, therefore the first edge > > >> is the first [out] or [in/out] parameter. > > > > Is it intentional that when modeling a function with positional [out] > > arguments, we cannot reliably determine whether the return value is > void > > unless we have external knowledge of the method signature and the > number > > of arguments expected? For a function taking a variable number of > > arguments, it would seem to be impossible to determine in general > whether > > the return value was void. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 > > IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > > One Rogers Street > > Cambridge, MA 02142 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 8 April 2002 19:11:33 UTC