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

4060RE: [soapbuilders] Question: vs for Struct Field s

Expand Messages
  • Matt Long
    Jun 26, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I think more of business issue case where the request and response must be
      highly ordered. Consider a DTC trade affirmation or confirm, you may not
      want to drive the structure of the request and response based on <all> as
      you can resolve many issues by placing the order in <sequence>. BTW, is can
      quickly digress into "nillable" vs. omitted elements discussion.

      -Matt


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: YU,KEVIN (HP-FtCollins,ex1) [mailto:kevin_yu2@...]
      > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:06 PM
      > To: 'soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com'
      > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Question: <all> vs <sequence> for Struct
      > Field s
      >
      >
      > Hi, Matt
      > why <sequence> is important? Do you have a use case? The
      > one I can think
      > of is that some language doesn't provide Struct field name,
      > which will make
      > the order of the fields on the wire significant.
      >
      > -Kevin
      > HP SOAP
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Matt Long [mailto:mlong@...]
      > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 7:58 PM
      > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Question: <all> vs <sequence> for Struct
      > Fields
      >
      >
      > I think <all> works best in terms of the spec, e.g., Round 2 testing.
      > However, it doesn't mean that <sequence> should and/or cannot
      > be supported
      > for struct. Perhaps, we should test for this case at some
      > point, it *is*
      > important.
      >
      > -Matt
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: YU,KEVIN (HP-FtCollins,ex1) [mailto:kevin_yu2@...]
      > > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 9:29 PM
      > > To: 'soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com'
      > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Question: <all> vs <sequence> for
      > > Struct Fields
      > >
      > >
      > > Hi,
      > > We are working on WSDL generation. The following two schemas
      > > are both valid
      > > for representing a Struct, however, is there a preferred one?
      > > why and on
      > > what use case?
      > >
      > > 1)
      > > <complexType name="SOAPStruct">
      > > <sequence>
      > > <element name="varString" type="string" />
      > > <element name="varInt" type="int" />
      > > <element name="varFloat" type="float" />
      > > </sequence>
      > > </complexType>
      > >
      > > 2)
      > > <complexType name="SOAPStruct">
      > > <all>
      > > <element name="varString" type="string" />
      > > <element name="varInt" type="int" />
      > > <element name="varFloat" type="float" />
      > > </all>
      > > </complexType>
      > >
      > > Thanks.
      > >
      > > -Kevin
      > > HP SOAP
      > >
      > > 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/
      >
      >
      > 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 11 messages in this topic