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

Re: [soapbuilders] Null values.

Expand Messages
  • David Crowley
    ... The current spec in section 5.1 says that it MAY also be represented by adding the xsi:null attribute to the accessor. I would actually prefer the
    Message 1 of 62 , Apr 13, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > SOAP allows a number of options for how database (or programming
      > language) nulls would be lexically represented. There is a long thread
      > on this in the soapbuilders archives. I have recommended that a null be
      > represented by omission of the corresponding element.
      >

      The current spec in section 5.1 says that it MAY also be represented
      by adding the xsi:null attribute to the accessor. I would actually
      prefer the xsi:null/nil attribute because then I know for sure that
      it's not a client sending a corrupt message. If you leave out
      the element which is null then echoString with no parameters should
      behave the same as sending a "null string." Having the acessor
      present with xsi:null="1" makes the situation clear.
    • Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
      ... is ... Isn t it only when there is no true root of a serialization (for example multiple interlinked multi-refs) that the root attribute may have to be
      Message 62 of 62 , Apr 22, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Noah writes:
        >
        >Henrik writes:
        >
        >>> What I think needs clarification is in section 7.1 [2] where it
        >>> should say that the request as well as the response must be
        >>> serialized as the root object of the graph if encoded according to
        >>> section 5.
        >
        >I agree. Would it make sense to go a bit further and establish rules
        >along the lines of:
        >
        >* (Chap 5) If no multi-refs are referenced, use of the root attribute
        is
        >optional. The lexical root of the tree is deemed a root of the object

        >graph.

        Isn't it only when there is no "true root" of a serialization (for
        example multiple interlinked multi-refs) that the root attribute may
        have to be used to disambiguate the true root of an object graph? Also,
        this might be special to object graphs as it wouldn't cause any problems
        for an RDF graph, for example.

        I agree that in the simple case of no multi-refs, the lexical root of
        the tree is the root of the object graph as well.

        >* (Chap 7) As you suggest: RPC request/response must be the root of
        the
        >graph, and there can be only one root of the serialization (else fault)

        yup

        >* (Chap 5 or 7, I'm not sure) Either in all uses of the encoding (chap
        5)
        >or when used specifically for RPC (Chap 7 ...which would BTW apply to
        >other encodings too...a good thing I think) "When references to
        multi-ref
        >objects are present an a serialization, the ROOT attribute must be used
        to
        >establish the root of the object graph." A concern I have about this
        is
        >that there might be problems when doing partial deserializations...you
        >might be deserializing a tree, for my header it might only be a subtree

        >(for graphs in which that makes sense), which one(s) need a ROOT
        >attribute?

        If my statement above is true then it seems that this should be
        mentioned in section 7 as it implies object graphs. However, it seems
        that the MUST requirement for use of the "root" attribute only applies
        in the case of multiple, interlinked multi-refs. The graph may be
        unambiguous even with multi-refs involved which seems to call for a for
        a MAY in those cases, no?

        >What do you think?

        Henrik
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.