- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:25:59 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- cc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Henrik,
would that be the same as having the old naming style and the
old struct style and having one other parameter - an array?
If so, I believe this can be handled in the application level
*quite* nicely, and all we could do is maybe publish a
best-practices note about this.
Please also see my subsequent reply to Pete's email. 8-)
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>
> 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 Tuesday, 16 April 2002 04:26:13 UTC