- 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