Re: Issue 299: RPC return value accessor too complex

 Maybe it would help if the spec contains some rationale for this 
complexity. The rationale may be that this is the only way we've 
found that plays nice with namespaces and schemas (apart from 
removing the notion of a return value altogether).
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote:

 > While I think that language in clause 2 of 4.2.2[1] could be clearer (
 > and am happy to make it so ), I think the current design works and is
 > consistent with the SOAP Data Model. So I propose we close this issue[2]
 > with no action beyond an instruction to the editors to tidy up the
 > language.
 > Gudge
 > [1]
 > [2]

Received on Sunday, 1 September 2002 10:34:31 UTC