Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal

Jackek and I just finished a phone call and we've come to the conclusion
that Jacek is right.

Because RPC is based on the SOAP Data Model anything that is described in
the RPC section MUST be able to be represented in that model. Graph edge
names are already part of the model, a 'return value label' is not. So the
only way to indicate the return value is to use a graph edge label,
otherwise other encodings of the data model would have no way of encoding
the information.

So we're back to choosing between two options;

1.    Mandate the value of the label of the inbound edge of the node that
represents the return value of the method

2.    Say nothing about return values.

I have a fairly strong preference for 2

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>; "Jacek Kopecky"
<jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: "Ray Whitmer" <rayw@netscape.com>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
> To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
> Cc: "Ray Whitmer" <rayw@netscape.com>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal
>
>
> <SNIP/>
> >
> > We don't explicitly state that such attributes are allowed in the SOAP
> > Encoding, but neither do we explicity rule them out.
>
> I notice that the encoding schema actually DOES allow attributes from
other
> namespaces although we don't actually call this out in the spec right now
>
> Gudge
>
>

Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 10:02:39 UTC