Re: Proposal for issue 78: RPC structs and Encoding root attribute

 Marc, 
 your rewrite is certainly cleaner, thank you for it. But in any
case the vague part stays: "...and element information items that
may appear to be roots of a graph but are not." What does it mean 
to "may appear to be root"?
 I would like to see us mandate that the non-roots be marked as 
such - your option b.
 How do you feel about removing the "root" stuff altogether?
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Marc Hadley wrote:

 > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
 > 
 > >  2) Rephrase the long paragraph into:
 > >  >>The root attribute information item can be used to label
 > > serialization roots that are not true roots of an object graph so
 > > that the object graph can be deserialized. True roots of a
 > > serialized graph have the implied value of "true" for this
 > > attribute information item or they may explicitly be labeled as
 > > true roots with a root attribute information item with a value of
 > > "true". An element information item that is not a serialization
 > > root but may appear so SHOULD/MUST explicitly be labeled as not
 > > being a serialization root with a root attribute information item
 > > with a value of "false".<<
 > > 
 > 
 > This is still potentially a bit confusing I think. How about:
 > 
 > "The root attribute item is used to distinguish between element 
 > information items that are true roots of a serialised graph and element 
 > information items that may appear to be roots of a graph but are not. 
 > Element information items that are true roots MAY be labelled with a 
 > root attribute information item with a logical value of "true". Element 
 > information items that are not roots MAY be labelled with a root 
 > attribute information item with a logical value of "false".
 > 
 > We may want to change the two MAYs to SHOULDs or MUSTs depending on how 
 > we see root being used. Personally I think it would be preferable if we 
 > mandate one of either:
 > 
 > (a) the root is labelled with "true" or,
 > (b) the non-roots are labelled with "false".
 > 
 > Rather than leave it up to a sender to decided which to do.
 > 
 > 
 > regards,
 > 
 > Marc.
 > 
 >

Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 07:29:58 UTC