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

4065RE: [soapbuilders] Question: vs for Struct Field s

Expand Messages
  • Matt Long
    Jun 26, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I'd think you are correct in the generic where the use case drives schema.
      Section 5 clearly equates to <all>, however that does not equate to
      disposing of the WSDL schema as it defines the struct. I can imagine cases
      where one would want to send "rpc encoded" as use <sequence>. Perhaps, a
      more opaque question is whether SOAP supports "encoded" where WSDL has
      defined a struct as <sequence>. If the answer is no, then is a WSDL
      defining such broken?

      -Matt




      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Tony Hong [mailto:thong@...]
      > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:52 PM
      > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Question: <all> vs <sequence> for Struct
      > Field s
      >
      >
      > I would guess that this particular case, where business
      > context is driving
      > the schema, would be implemented via a document-style SOAP
      > exchange, in
      > which case this might not be a section 5 SOAP struct discussion...
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Matt Long [mailto:mlong@...]
      > > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:20 PM
      > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Question: <all> vs <sequence> for Struct
      > > Field s
      > >
      > >
      > > 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/
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 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