- From: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:47:16 -0700
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
I have been trying to think of alternatives, myself. How about a new SOAP encoding type (like a struct or array) which is an extra child of the RPC call that identifies the return. Relying on schema types is no worse than the call itself, which must be identified as an array or a struct (or derived from those) before the call can be decoded. Requiring it to have a specific QName would violate the rules of an array, I think, for which it is also useful. Languages which have no returns can ignore it and it has all the normal characteristics of an out parameter. Also, an array return can use this as a better way to positively identify the return, even in the presence of a void return, in which case it is ommitted. In the array case, it would not use a QName, but some positional indication such as an index or immediately preceeding the actual return. Ray Whitmer rayw@netscape.com
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 18:47:26 UTC