- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:56:31 -0700
- To: "Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
- Cc: "Ray Whitmer" <rayw@netscape.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
FWIW (and take this with a grain of salt). I can live quite happily without support for positional [in][out] parameters but just as a proposal - if we want to go there then maybe we can get around the current problem by saying that we *always* use a struct with or without a "result" (status quo) and then model positional parameters as an array within the struct: ... <s:Body s:encodingStyle="http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-encoding"> <m:MyResponse xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/foo/bar"> <r:result xmlns:r="http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-rpc">...</r:result> <m:MyParams e:itemType="xs:int"> <item>1</item> <item>56</item> </m:MyParams> </m:MyResponse> </s:Body> ... Does this make sense - am I missing something obvious? Henrik >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.
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 18:56:42 UTC