- From: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:13:01 -0700
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
I, too, prefer the proposal that ignores the special status of the return in the result message. I only suggested adding a pseudo-output-argument which indicates which is the return because it seemed to be the way to add that information without harming other things. If adding an attribute violates the model, it avoids that. It just looks like another well-identified output argument. Let me take a different approach to the discussion. I assert that with two different types of RPC call and response -- array and struct -- it seems impossible to know which result is the return even using a fixed namespace/localname for the return. This is because there seems to be no good way -- short of knowing the type of the return -- array or struct -- which will not be obvious since it is named after the object and the method. While some may choose to attach and interpret the xsi:type, there are many who will likely prefer not to do this but rather to rely on a schema which indicates that the object is a subtype of one or the other. I dislike xsi:type and think it should be possible to avoid it. I think this is an argument that the binding cannot just ignorantly process the response without knowing about the call signature so knowing which is the return value does not help much independently. As I have pointed out in the past, this is clearly the case in the named argument/struct when calling from most languages anyway since most languages pass arguments by position rather than value and the association cannot be made on-the-fly without knowing the names and positions of the arguments. Ray Whitmer rayw@netscape.com
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 20:12:44 UTC