3580RE: [soapbuilders] question re: "typed" nils
- Jun 2, 2001Andrew,
point noted, but what if you don't know there is a cupboard in the room?
The room contains:
empty anything not in the room
Is not a bit like answering a "Jeopardy" question(albeit an answer) with
"What is NOT in my mother's kitchen?" Which is the correct answer to most
anything (if you know my mother's kitchen).
is it not true that message intent may be impossible to ensure by omitting
an element? That is, by omitting the an element the intent may have been
"nil" or just simply may have been an error.
...snatch the pebble from my hand?... ;-) (I'm sure you will!!!!)
> -----Original Message-----http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> From: Andrew Layman [mailto:yahoo@...]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:44 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: mrys@...; Allen Brown; ashokma@...
> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] question re: "typed" nils
> If you open an empty cupboard and don't find an elephant
> inside, are the
> contents of the cupboard different from opening it and not finding a
> bicycle? :-)
> Most database and programming systems do not typically have
> specific types
> for different kinds of voids, and for good reason: Something
> which is not
> there does not have any properties.
> This does not mean that there is never a good use for
> xsi:nil='true'. There
> may be some times when one wants to indicate not merely the absence of
> knowledge, but the positive statement that it is known that
> no value exists.
> One may even want to add attributes to indicate why no value
> exists or is
> known. But, even in these cases, I do not think one would
> properly use
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "graham glass" <graham-glass@...>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 9:18 AM
> Subject: [soapbuilders] question re: "typed" nils
> hi guys,
> GLUE currently always sends typed data, even when the
> element is "nil". however, as i design the custom
> serialization system, i'm finding that this complicates
> things for developers who want to plug in their own
> serializers, and so i'm contemplating simplifying their
> live by dropping the type information for nils.
> based on previous postings, it sounds like sending a nil
> in the first place is not as ideal as omitting the element,
> so i figured that sending a nil without type information
> would probably not break interop.
> am i right, or is this a bad move?
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>