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

4062Re: [soapbuilders] Question: vs for Struct Field s

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Layman
    Jun 26, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Section 5.4 says

      "SOAP serialization does not require that the underlying data model make an
      ordering distinction among accessors, but if such an order exists, the
      accessors MUST be encoded in that sequence."

      My understanding of the data model of most modern programming languages is
      that accessors with distinct names are not ordered. This means that, at
      least so far as section 5 encoding is concerned, there is no necessary
      constraint on the order of distinctly-named accessors. (I say
      "distinctly-named" to distinguish these from the elements in an array, for
      which order certainly matters.)

      This does not forbid the imposition of an order. For example, someone might
      invent an encodingStyle that is compatible with section 5 but adds the
      further restriction that accessors appear in alphabetical order. This might
      have some performance advantages for deserializers that thereby have a
      simpler state machine. I mention this as an example only. I don't know of
      any such usage.

      Of course, once we move beyond section 5 encoding and look to schemas to
      define the lexical form of messages, then the schema designer can choose
      <sequence> or <all> as he prefers. Note, here, that neither choice implies
      that the actual order is semantically significant; that is a separate issue
      that would need a separate indication in the schema.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Simon Fell" <sfell@...>
      To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 7:52 PM
      Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Question: <all> vs <sequence> for Struct Field s


      The prose definition of struct in the SOAP Spec (for section 5 encodings
      anyway), indicates that child element name not order is important, <all> is
      much closer to that definition that <sequence> and I think most WSDL
      generates use <all>.

      Cheers
      Simon

      -----Original Message-----
      From: YU,KEVIN (HP-FtCollins,ex1) [mailto:kevin_yu2@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 7:29 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/
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic