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

RE: [soapbuilders] Can we agree on the name of the output element s?

Expand Messages
  • Glen Daniels
    ... +1
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
      > I suggest that "conformance to the published standard WSDL doc"
      > means that the name of the return value accessor should be
      > "return" as given there. It would certainly minimize confusion.
      >
      > This problem goes away, of course, if the standard binding doc
      > "InteropTest.wsdl" is imported into any endpoint specific WSDL
      > docs. The great virtue of using standard docs this way is the
      > uniformity it confers across implementations.

      +1
    • Andrew Layman
      Add another +1. :-) Andrew Layman http://strongbrains.com -- Resources for Self-Education ... From: Glen Daniels To:
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
        Add another +1. :-)

        Andrew Layman
        http://strongbrains.com -- Resources for Self-Education
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@...>
        To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 8:02 AM
        Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Can we agree on the name of the output element
        s?


        > I suggest that "conformance to the published standard WSDL doc"
        > means that the name of the return value accessor should be
        > "return" as given there. It would certainly minimize confusion.
        >
        > This problem goes away, of course, if the standard binding doc
        > "InteropTest.wsdl" is imported into any endpoint specific WSDL
        > docs. The great virtue of using standard docs this way is the
        > uniformity it confers across implementations.

        +1



        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        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/
      • Simon Fell
        ... -1 The spec is clear that this name is meaningless, the fact that we ve decided to describe the service using WSDL (IIRC we said we weren t testing WSDL,
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
          On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:02:38 -0400, in soap you wrote:

          >> I suggest that "conformance to the published standard WSDL doc"
          >> means that the name of the return value accessor should be
          >> "return" as given there. It would certainly minimize confusion.
          >>
          >> This problem goes away, of course, if the standard binding doc
          >> "InteropTest.wsdl" is imported into any endpoint specific WSDL
          >> docs. The great virtue of using standard docs this way is the
          >> uniformity it confers across implementations.

          -1

          The spec is clear that this name is meaningless, the fact that we've
          decided to describe the service using WSDL (IIRC we said we weren't
          testing WSDL, just using it to describe the service), shouldn't change
          that.

          Cheers
          Simon
        • Simon Horrell
          I agree. The name chosen should be irrelevant. N.B. when generating code from schema types one has to be careful to watch out for element names such as
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
            I agree. The name chosen should be irrelevant. N.B. when generating code
            from schema types one has to be careful to watch out for element names such
            as 'return'. :-)
            Si.

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Simon Fell" <soap@...>
            To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 5:06 PM
            Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Can we agree on the name of the output element
            s?


            > On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:02:38 -0400, in soap you wrote:
            >
            > >> I suggest that "conformance to the published standard WSDL doc"
            > >> means that the name of the return value accessor should be
            > >> "return" as given there. It would certainly minimize confusion.
            > >>
            > >> This problem goes away, of course, if the standard binding doc
            > >> "InteropTest.wsdl" is imported into any endpoint specific WSDL
            > >> docs. The great virtue of using standard docs this way is the
            > >> uniformity it confers across implementations.
            >
            > -1
            >
            > The spec is clear that this name is meaningless, the fact that we've
            > decided to describe the service using WSDL (IIRC we said we weren't
            > testing WSDL, just using it to describe the service), shouldn't change
            > that.
            >
            > Cheers
            > Simon
            >
            >
            > -----------------------------------------------------------------
            > 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/
            >
            >
          • Bob Cunnings
            Hello, I don t think that anyone disputes the point that the name *is* insignificant. The issue is whether or not the ground rules for the interop testing
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
              Hello,

              I don't think that anyone disputes the point that the name *is*
              insignificant. The issue is whether or not the ground rules for the
              interop testing activity should (or already do) impose any
              restrictions for the sake of simplifying the process.

              It could be argued that it's an important interop goal (for clients) to
              demonstrate indifference to the name of return value accessors in
              response messages, per the spec.

              Anyway, the wording of the proposal [1] is that envelopes "should"
              conform to the envelope described by the standard WSDL doc, not
              that they "must".

              Maybe Sam has something further to say?

              RC

              > On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:02:38 -0400, in soap you wrote:
              >
              > >> I suggest that "conformance to the published standard WSDL doc"
              > >> means that the name of the return value accessor should be
              > >> "return" as given there. It would certainly minimize confusion.
              > >>
              > >> This problem goes away, of course, if the standard binding doc
              > >> "InteropTest.wsdl" is imported into any endpoint specific WSDL
              > >> docs. The great virtue of using standard docs this way is the
              > >> uniformity it confers across implementations.
              >
              > -1
              >
              > The spec is clear that this name is meaningless, the fact that we've
              > decided to describe the service using WSDL (IIRC we said we weren't
              > testing WSDL, just using it to describe the service), shouldn't change
              > that.
              >
              > Cheers
              > Simon
              >
              >
              > -----------------------------------------------------------------
              > 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/
              >
            • Bob Cunnings
              Oops, The proposal referenced is: http://www.whitemesa.com/interop/proposal2.html RC ... rability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
                Oops,

                The "proposal" referenced is:

                http://www.whitemesa.com/interop/proposal2.html

                RC

                > Hello,
                >
                > I don't think that anyone disputes the point that the name *is*
                > insignificant. The issue is whether or not the ground rules for the
                > interop testing activity should (or already do) impose any
                > restrictions for the sake of simplifying the process.
                >
                > It could be argued that it's an important interop goal (for clients) to
                > demonstrate indifference to the name of return value accessors in
                > response messages, per the spec.
                >
                > Anyway, the wording of the proposal [1] is that envelopes "should"
                > conform to the envelope described by the standard WSDL doc, not
                > that they "must".
                >
                > Maybe Sam has something further to say?
                >
                > RC
                >
                > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:02:38 -0400, in soap you wrote:
                > >
                > > >> I suggest that "conformance to the published standard WSDL doc"
                > > >> means that the name of the return value accessor should be
                > > >> "return" as given there. It would certainly minimize confusion.
                > > >>
                > > >> This problem goes away, of course, if the standard binding doc
                > > >> "InteropTest.wsdl" is imported into any endpoint specific WSDL
                > > >> docs. The great virtue of using standard docs this way is the
                > > >> uniformity it confers across implementations.
                > >
                > > -1
                > >
                > > The spec is clear that this name is meaningless, the fact that we've
                > > decided to describe the service using WSDL (IIRC we said we weren't
                > > testing WSDL, just using it to describe the service), shouldn't change
                > > that.
                > >
                > > Cheers
                > > Simon
                > >
                > >
                > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                > > 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/
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interope
                rability 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/
                >
              • Sam Ruby
                ... Not any more... ;-) It is clear that the answer to the question on the subject line is NO . - Sam Ruby P.S. It is my observation that ASP.Net beta 2
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
                  Bob Cunnings wrote:
                  >
                  > Maybe Sam has something further to say?

                  Not any more... ;-)

                  It is clear that the answer to the question on the subject line is "NO".

                  - Sam Ruby

                  P.S. It is my observation that ASP.Net beta 2 relies on the name of the
                  output element. Apache Soap 2.2 will only successfully parse the response
                  if *either* a known xsi:type is specified, *or* the name of the output
                  element matches a value in the deployment descriptor. I am not making
                  value judgements in either case...
                • Alex DeJarnatt
                  ASP.NET web services don t care what the response element name is for RPC. We always write the operation name as defined in WSDL + Response , but don t care
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
                    ASP.NET web services don't care what the response element name is for
                    RPC. We always write the operation name as defined in WSDL + "Response",
                    but don't care what we read.
                    alex

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@...]
                    Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:31 AM
                    To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Can we agree on the name of the output
                    element s?

                    Bob Cunnings wrote:
                    >
                    > Maybe Sam has something further to say?

                    Not any more... ;-)

                    It is clear that the answer to the question on the subject line is "NO".

                    - Sam Ruby

                    P.S. It is my observation that ASP.Net beta 2 relies on the name of the
                    output element. Apache Soap 2.2 will only successfully parse the
                    response
                    if *either* a known xsi:type is specified, *or* the name of the output
                    element matches a value in the deployment descriptor. I am not making
                    value judgements in either case...



                    -----------------------------------------------------------------
                    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/
                  • Sam Ruby
                    ... Agreed, but my testing leads me to believe that ASP.NET beta 2 does very much care about the name of the output element which is contained within that
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
                      Alex DeJarnatt wrote:
                      >
                      > > P.S. It is my observation that ASP.Net beta 2 relies on the name of the
                      > > output element.
                      >
                      > ASP.NET web services don't care what the response element name is for
                      > RPC. We always write the operation name as defined in WSDL + "Response",
                      > but don't care what we read.

                      Agreed, but my testing leads me to believe that ASP.NET beta 2 does very
                      much care about the name of the output element which is contained within
                      that response (and was the subject of this discussion). If you believe
                      otherwise, I can try to construct a test case.

                      - Sam Ruby
                    • Alex DeJarnatt
                      We re talking about the same element, right? :)
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
                        We're talking about the same element, right? :)

                        <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
                        <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
                        xmlns:soapenc="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"

                        xmlns:tns="http://tempuri.org/"
                        xmlns:types="http://tempuri.org/encodedTypes"
                        xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"

                        xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
                        <soap:Body
                        soap:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/">
                        <tns:SayHelloWorldResponse> <!-- this one here -->
                        <SayHelloWorldResult xsi:type="xsd:string">Hello
                        Alex</SayHelloWorldResult> <!-- or this one here -->
                        </tns:SayHelloWorldResponse>
                        </soap:Body>
                        </soap:Envelope>

                        I marked two elements above -- tns:SayHelloWorldResponse and
                        SayHelloWorldResult under that -- for both we don't care about the name.
                        If you're seeing different behavior, please let me know...
                        Thanks
                        alex

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@...]
                        Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:25 PM
                        To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Can we agree on the name of the output
                        element s?

                        Alex DeJarnatt wrote:
                        >
                        > > P.S. It is my observation that ASP.Net beta 2 relies on the name of
                        the
                        > > output element.
                        >
                        > ASP.NET web services don't care what the response element name is for
                        > RPC. We always write the operation name as defined in WSDL +
                        "Response",
                        > but don't care what we read.

                        Agreed, but my testing leads me to believe that ASP.NET beta 2 does very
                        much care about the name of the output element which is contained within
                        that response (and was the subject of this discussion). If you believe
                        otherwise, I can try to construct a test case.

                        - Sam Ruby



                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        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/
                      • Sam Ruby
                        Alex DeJarnatt ... I figured out what I was seeing. It doesn t exactly apply to these interop tests, but I ll include an explanation here in case anybody else
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
                          Alex DeJarnatt
                          >
                          > If you're seeing different behavior, please let me know...

                          I figured out what I was seeing. It doesn't exactly apply to these interop
                          tests, but I'll include an explanation here in case anybody else is
                          curious:

                          The default for an asmx file is to NOT use SoapEncoding. With the
                          default, it appears that names of elements DO matter. Getting the name
                          wrong produces no error, but you end up with a null result. Marking the
                          method as [SoapRpcMethod] will cause ASP.Net to ignore the element name,
                          per the SOAP specification, and you get the result you expect.

                          - Sam Ruby
                        • Simon Fell
                          However, both of those points are part of section 7, not section 5, so whether you are doing section 5 encoding or not should have no effect on those rules.
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
                            However, both of those points are part of section 7, not section 5, so
                            whether you are doing section 5 encoding or not should have no effect on
                            those rules.

                            Cheers
                            Simon

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@...]
                            Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 1:38 PM
                            To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Can we agree on the name of the output
                            element s?


                            Alex DeJarnatt
                            >
                            > If you're seeing different behavior, please let me know...

                            I figured out what I was seeing. It doesn't exactly apply to these interop
                            tests, but I'll include an explanation here in case anybody else is
                            curious:

                            The default for an asmx file is to NOT use SoapEncoding. With the
                            default, it appears that names of elements DO matter. Getting the name
                            wrong produces no error, but you end up with a null result. Marking the
                            method as [SoapRpcMethod] will cause ASP.Net to ignore the element name,
                            per the SOAP specification, and you get the result you expect.

                            - Sam Ruby



                            -----------------------------------------------------------------
                            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/
                          • Keith Ballinger
                            We have three modes of operation: * rpc/encoded - which is Section 5 and Section 7 * document/encoded - which is section 5 * document - which is neither, and
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jul 12, 2001
                              Message
                              We have three modes of operation:
                               
                              * rpc/encoded - which is Section 5 and Section 7
                              * document/encoded - which is section 5
                              * document - which is neither, and completely schema based
                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Simon Fell [mailto:sfell@...]
                              Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 2:37 PM
                              To: 'soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com'
                              Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Can we agree on the name of the output element s?

                              However, both of those points are part of section 7, not section 5, so
                              whether you are doing section 5 encoding or not should have no effect on
                              those rules.

                              Cheers
                              Simon

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@...]
                              Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 1:38 PM
                              To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Can we agree on the name of the output
                              element s?


                              Alex DeJarnatt
                              >
                              > If you're seeing different behavior, please let me know...

                              I figured out what I was seeing.  It doesn't exactly apply to these interop
                              tests, but I'll include an explanation here in case anybody else is
                              curious:

                                 The default for an asmx file is to NOT use SoapEncoding.  With the
                                 default, it appears that names of elements DO matter.  Getting the name
                                 wrong produces no error, but you end up with a null result.  Marking the
                                 method as [SoapRpcMethod] will cause ASP.Net to ignore the element name,
                                 per the SOAP specification, and you get the result you expect.

                              - Sam Ruby



                              -----------------------------------------------------------------
                              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/


                              -----------------------------------------------------------------
                              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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.