- 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