Re: RPC Mapping

OK, but what about the fact that the [in] params 'will be' in the order of
the method sig but the [out] params 'SHOULD' be in the order of the method


----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <>; "XML Protocol Discussion"
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 4:18 PM
Subject: RE: RPC Mapping

As we now have a better way of indicating the "result" by using a Qname
from our namespace there is no need to say anything special about it. I
would just write the part "The return value accessor SHOULD be first"
out of the text.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Gudgin []
>Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 07:35
>To: XML Protocol Discussion
>Subject: RPC Mapping
>In the editors copy of Part 2[1], section 4.1[2] states of
>[in] and [in/out] parameters in the request that;
> 'These appear in the same order as in the procedure or method
>For [out] and [in/out] parameters in the response it states;
> 'The return value accessor SHOULD be first, followed by the
>accessors for the parameters which SHOULD be in the same order
>as they appear in the procedure or method signature.'
>Why the inconsistency? I think we should say the same thing
>for both request and response. I don't have a *strong* opinion
>about whether we should enforce order or not, but I'd tend to
>lean toward lining up the response description with the
>description of the request.

Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 11:24:56 UTC