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

4074RE: [soapbuilders] Question: vs for Struct Field s

Expand Messages
  • Erik Christensen
    Jun 27, 2001
      Also note that the WSDL examples use <all>:
      http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_rpcexample

      -Erik
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Andrew Layman [mailto:andrew@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:34 PM
      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Yann Christensen; Erik Christensen; Ashok
      Malhotra
      Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Question: <all> vs <sequence> for Struct
      Field s


      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