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

6415RE: [soapbuilders] Re: jSOAP and MSSOAP3.0 client test results

Expand Messages
  • Matt Long
    Dec 7, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      It seems to that if the xsd instrinsic type is used on the message part the
      all soap encoding rules apply to the the context, including nillable='true',
      see WSDL Section 2.2. However, I suppose you could restrict the simpleType
      by referencing a simpleType in the wsdl schema with a restriction that
      nillable='false', thus clearly describing the context of the part.

      Does this make sense?



      <definitions xmlns="wsdl-namespace"
      xmlns:s="http://soapinterog.org/xsd" />
      <schema targetNamespace="http://soapinterop.org/xsd"
      <simpleType name="nonNillableString">
      <restriction base="string">
      <nonNillableString nillable="false"/>
      <message name="echoStringRequest">
      <part name="inputString" type="s:nonNillableString"/>
      <message name="echoStringResponse">
      <part name="inputString type="s:nonNillableString">

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Robert van Engelen [mailto:engelen@...]
      > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:22 AM
      > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: jSOAP and MSSOAP3.0 client test results
      > Hi,
      > I like that SOAP4R tries all extremes, but some things have not
      > been settled
      > yet in WSDL/SOAP. I think that pta and sparse arrays are clear to some
      > extend, but I find the following example a bit unsettling.
      > I was wondering about the validity of sending of nil elements as request
      > parameters and the appropriate response to this.
      > For example, the WSDL specifies the request message to contain the three
      > parameters:
      > <message name="echoSimpleTypesAsStructRequest">
      > <part name="inputString" type="xsd:string"/>
      > <part name="inputInteger" type="xsd:int"/>
      > <part name="inputFloat" type="xsd:float"/>
      > </message>
      > Now, the SOAP4R client sends me:
      > <n2:echoSimpleTypesAsStruct
      > env:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"
      > xmlns:n1="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"
      > xmlns:n2="http://soapinterop.org/">
      > <inputString xsi:nil="true"></inputString>
      > <inputInteger xsi:nil="true"></inputInteger>
      > <inputFloat xsi:nil="true"></inputFloat>
      > </n2:echoSimpleTypesAsStruct>
      > The current WSDL spec does not allow the inclusion of
      > xsi:nillable attributes in
      > message-part specifications, unlike the data type XML schemas.
      > By default I assume that the parameters are non-nillable. Would that be a
      > sensible choice? Right now gSOAP faults because it assumes the
      > parameters are
      > non-nillable.
      > If they are nillable, then the response might be
      > <s:SOAPStruct>
      > <varString xsi:nil="true"/>
      > <varInteger xsi:nil="true"/>
      > <varFloat xsi:nil="true"/>
      > <s:SOAPStruct>
      > or it might even be
      > <s:SOAPStruct xsi:nil="true"/>
      > because the application-level has to decide how the response should be.
      > That is my problem with this example: it is not SOAP-specific.
      > The application
      > layer has to decide on an appropriate response.
      > Forgive my ignorance, but is there any concensus on the "nillability" of
      > request parameters?
      > - Robert
      > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
      > discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      > 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 13 messages in this topic