- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:24:53 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Cc: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Jacek Kopecky writes: >> SOAP Encoding rules serialize a >> given graph starting at a given thing >> (be it an edge or a node, this is left >> unspecified in the spec AFAIK). >>This process is a recursive one - >> serializing a node also means >> serializing all its outgoing edges, >> serializing an edge also means >> serializing the target node etc. Let me respectfully disagree. We in general go to great lengths not to describe a "process" in the sense you mean; we specify the encoding (and the rest of SOAP, where possible) declaratively. Thus, the encoding chapter establishes a correspondence between every legal serialization and its corresponding graph. We don't tell you how to build on from the other, in the sense of going a step at a time. That's your job as an implementor. Actually, I think the status quo does support multiples of what you are calling roots, which I take to be named edges with no source. What about (augmenting on the example from my note of a few minutes ago): <A id="Aid" env:encodingStyle="...soap encoding..."> <!--struct--> <B>1</B> <C>2</C> </A> <X ref= "Aid" env:encodingStyle="...soap encoding..."/> I'm still a little vague as to whether we allow this, but I think we do. Doesn't it correspond to the following? | | | | A| | X | | | | ----------- | Struct | ----------- | | | | B| |C | | "1" "2" Bottom line: I can live with ruling out the X case, which I think does get you down to one root. I'm strongly against claiming that we describe a process of serializing or deserializing. I think we want to keep it declarative. Thank you! ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 14:26:22 UTC