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

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

Expand Messages
  • Simon Fell
    The prose definition of struct in the SOAP Spec (for section 5 encodings anyway), indicates that child element name not order is important, is much
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 26, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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/
    • YU,KEVIN (HP-FtCollins,ex1)
      Hi, Matt why 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
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 26, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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/
      • graham glass
        hmmmmmm, maybe we should stick with then! GLUE still uses , but it s scheduled to switch to in the next release. any feedback is most
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 26, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          hmmmmmm, maybe we should stick with <all> then!

          GLUE still uses <all>, but it's scheduled to switch to
          <sequence> in the next release.

          any feedback is most welcome!

          cheers,
          graham

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Simon Fell [mailto:sfell@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 9:52 PM
          To: 'soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com'
          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/
        • Matt Long
          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
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 26, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            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/
            >
          • Matt Long
            I believe Simon hit the nail of the head testing tests Section 5 interop testing tests WSDL interop Thoughts? -Matt ...
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 26, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              I believe Simon "hit the nail of the head"

              testing <all> tests Section 5 interop
              testing <sequence> tests WSDL interop

              Thoughts?

              -Matt


              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Simon Fell [mailto:sfell@...]
              > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 9:52 PM
              > To: 'soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com'
              > 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/
            • Andrew Layman
              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,
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 26, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                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/
              • Tony Hong
                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
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 26, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  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/
                  >
                • Matt Long
                  I d think you are correct in the generic where the use case drives schema. Section 5 clearly equates to , however that does not equate to disposing of the
                  Message 8 of 11 , 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/
                  • Erik Christensen
                    Also note that the WSDL examples use : http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_rpcexample -Erik ... From: Andrew Layman [mailto:andrew@strongbrains.com] Sent: Tuesday,
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 27, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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/
                    • Yann Christensen
                      ASP.NET Web Services uses . The reason is that: 1) only supports maxoccurs=1. See XML Schema 3.8.1 in [1] 2) does not support .
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jun 27, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ASP.NET Web Services uses <sequence>.

                        The reason is that:
                        1) <all> only supports maxoccurs=1. See XML Schema 3.8.1 in [1]
                        2) <all> does not support <choice>. See XML Schema 3.8.2 in [1]

                        Obviously there are lots of cases where we could use <all> but we stick
                        to <sequence> for simplicity of implementation.

                        [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Model_Groups

                        -Yann

                        ----- 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/
                      • Timothy J. Ewald
                        It is worth noting that the XmlSerializer class that ASP.NET Web Services uses to unmarshal types is driven by reflection against .NET metadata. It simply
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jul 2 4:52 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          It is worth noting that the XmlSerializer class that ASP.NET Web Services
                          uses to unmarshal types is driven by reflection against .NET metadata. It
                          simply walks through the field definitions for the target type and looks for
                          a corresponding element in the XML, *independent* of order. So while an
                          ASP.NET Web Service endpoint says it wants a <sequence>, it will accept
                          messages encoded as if it accepted <all>. Interestingly, it will also ignore
                          anything in the XML that doesn't correspond to a field of the target type.
                          In short, if a ASP.NET Web Service says it wants this:

                          <complexType name="Add">
                          <sequence>
                          <element name='x' type='xsd:int' />
                          <element name='y' type='xsd:int' />
                          </sequence>
                          </complexType>

                          It will accept any of these:

                          <Add>
                          <x>10</x>
                          <y>20</y>
                          </Add>

                          <Add>
                          <y>30</y>
                          <x>10</x>
                          <y>20</y>
                          </Add>

                          <Add>
                          <y>30</y>
                          <z>10</z>
                          </Point>

                          Assuming Add adds x and y together, these requests would produce 30, 40 and
                          30 as results, *without* raising an exception. I suppose some might find
                          this degree of "flexibility" beneficial, but given the use of <sequence>, it
                          is in error.

                          Tim-

                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: Yann Christensen [mailto:yannc@...]
                          > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:36 PM
                          > To: Andrew Layman; soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                          > Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Erik Christensen; Ashok Malhotra
                          > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Question: <all> vs <sequence> for Struct
                          > Field s
                          >
                          >
                          > ASP.NET Web Services uses <sequence>.
                          >
                          > The reason is that:
                          > 1) <all> only supports maxoccurs=1. See XML Schema 3.8.1 in [1]
                          > 2) <all> does not support <choice>. See XML Schema 3.8.2 in [1]
                          >
                          > Obviously there are lots of cases where we could use <all> but we stick
                          > to <sequence> for simplicity of implementation.
                          >
                          > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Model_Groups
                          >
                          > -Yann
                          >
                          > ----- 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/
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > 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/
                          >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.