Re: SOAP Encoding - Arrays

Thanks Jacek,

I have a few comments,
1) Part 1 contains a specific point that the normative schemas are
available by de-referencing the namespace URI's. I didn't see this
stated in Part 2
2) section 3.1 no longer mentions that multi-ref elements should be
serialized at the top level of serialization [and IIRC, i thought this
had been dropped, and they could all be inlined], but the examples in
section 3.5.1, still show independent roots
3) I thought that the definition of base64Binary in XSD removed the
requirement for the enc:base64 ?
4) If the array item element name is not significant, might it be
better to give it a specific name [as has been done with the return
parameter in the RPC part]. ?
5) in 3.1 rule 2, item 2 it says "the containing element instance is
itself contained within an element containing a (possibly defaulted)
enc:itemType attribute, " however part 1 rules out defaulted
attributes.
6) itemType seems redundant, everything it can do, can already be
achieved via schema types / xsi:type usage
7) concreteSize is defined as
	concreteSize    ::=    positive integer 
but positive integer doesn't appear to be defined, I assume positive
integer includes 0 ?

Cheers
Simon
www.pocketsoap.com


On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:00:52 +0100 (CET), in soap you wrote:

> Simon,
>
> you can see the current editors' copy of the spec at [1], it 
>contains the updated array serialization rules now.
>
> In this update, neither of the attributes itemType and arraySize 
>is mandatory, you can get the types from a schema very nicely. 
>And it is not necessary for WSDL to extend XML Schema by its own 
>attributes any more.
>
> Another thing, the current resolution of the WG is that the 
>Encoding will not (and does not in the editors' copy already) 
>support sparse arrays and partially transmitted arrays natively 
>(both can be supported by higher-level structures), which 
>should simplify implementation greatly (even _with_ the support 
>for partial and sparse arrays).
>
> Best regards,
>
>                   Jacek Kopecky
>
>                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
>                   http://www.systinet.com/
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.html
>
>
>
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Simon Fell wrote:
>
> > Thanks Don,
> > 
> > One of the recent discussions has been over splitting the type and
> > conformance information into two attributes [I'm not sure what the
> > status on this is, it doesn't appear to be in the current draft].
> > 
> > Given that and the fact that Schema's have stabilized, is it possible
> > to remove the requirement to specify the array item types in the
> > array, by using the "arrays must be of type soap-enc:Array or derived
> > from soap-enc:Array" [which i believe is already in the text]. This
> > allows you to push the metadata about the array into the schema and
> > out of the wire rep, but still use xsi:type for polymorphic arrays.
> > e.g.
> > // schema defines array to be of type ns:arrayOfInt
> > <array enc:arraySize="10" enc:offset="5">
> > 	<item>25</item>
> > 	<item>35</item>
> > </array>
> > 
> > // schema defines array to be of type enc:Array
> > <array xsi:type="ns:arrayOfInt" enc:arraySize="2">
> > 	<item>10</item>
> > 	<item>20</item>
> > </array>
> > 
> > Where arrayOfInt is a type derived from soap-enc array, as described
> > in the WSDL spec. This allows arrays to be treated in a manner consist
> > with all the other type types that are part of the encoding spec.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Simon
> > www.pocketsoap.com
> > 
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:55:18 -0800, in soap you wrote:
> > 
> > >The reason for the SOAP:array attribute was two fold:
> > >
> > >1) We wanted the conformance (capacity) of the array to appear in the
> > >initial element. This is super important for supporting both Java/CLR
> > >and for NDR/CDR efficiently.
> > >
> > >2) We wanted the equivalent of xsi:type but with support for arrays (and
> > >arguably typed references). Unfortunately, SOAP/1.1 and earlier were
> > >written during a period of immense churn over in Schemas, so SOAP/1.1
> > >never had a chance to really finish this off. 
> > >
> > >DB
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Simon Fell [mailto:soap@zaks.demon.co.uk]
> > >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 11:09 AM
> > >> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > >> Subject: SOAP Encoding - Arrays
> > >> 
> > >> One thing i've never fully understood is why arrays are special when
> > >> it comes to type information, why must we include the type of the
> > >> array elements in the message, when for all other types, its contained
> > >> in external metadata (schema, etc).
> > >> 
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Simon
> > >> www.pocketsoap.com
> >

Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 23:37:06 UTC