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

6432Re: [soapbuilders] Re: jSOAP and MSSOAP3.0 client test results

Expand Messages
  • Alan Kent
    Dec 9, 2001
      On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 10:04:07AM -0600, Matt Long wrote:
      > ... 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?
      > Thx,
      > -Matt
      > <definitions xmlns="wsdl-namespace"
      > targetNamespace="http://soapinterop.org/"
      > xmlns:s="http://soapinterog.org/xsd" />
      > <types>
      > <schema targetNamespace="http://soapinterop.org/xsd"
      > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
      > <simpleType name="nonNillableString">
      > <restriction base="string">
      > <nonNillableString nillable="false"/>
      > </restriction>
      > </simpleType>
      > </schema>
      > </types>
      > ...
      > <message name="echoStringRequest">
      > <part name="inputString" type="s:nonNillableString"/>
      > </message>
      > <message name="echoStringResponse">
      > <part name="inputString type="s:nonNillableString">
      > </message>
      > ...
      > </definitions>

      This makes sense to me (with my limited schema/WSDL knowledge).
      Do most people support this? Could it become the 'recommended
      WSDL solution to nil/non-nil parameters'? (Should I be asking
      this on a WSDL list instead :-)

      I know SOAP allows nil's to be encoded - but that is not the
      question. Does the above WSDL successfully say 'inputString
      cannot be nil' and without the above does it mean 'inputString
      can be nil'? This impacts the current interop tests as to
      if sending a nil is OK or not with the WSDL file currently
      in use.

      This is one of the final areas where I don't really have a
      satisfactory answer to - other areas (such as p-t-a and sparse)
      I believe I fully understand the current position of SOAP
      (I might not like it, but I understand it :-). Nil's for parameters
      was the final area of 'lack of functionality' to me.

      Then, if the above is the correct way to go, should the current
      interop tests allow or exclude nil? Or both? Or just leave it
      as it is (which is fine by me).

    • Show all 13 messages in this topic