Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3583RE: [soapbuilders] question re: "typed" nils

Expand Messages
  • James Snell
    Jun 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >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? :-)

      I find myself in awe of such profound truth. ;-)



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Andrew Layman [mailto:yahoo@...]
      Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 8:44 PM
      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.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 xsi:type.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "graham glass" <graham-glass@...>
      To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      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?

      cheers,
      graham

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic