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

RE: [soapbuilders] Use of SOAP-ENC simple values in structs

Expand Messages
  • Matt Long
    inline ... I m trying the draw from the two following fragments from 5.4, 5.4.1 that you quoted. 5.4 member names be unique 5.4.1 Accessor local to their
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 29, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      inline


      > Hi Matt,
      >
      > I've always interpreted (from 5.4.1):
      >
      > "When accessors are distinguished by their name, (as for example in a
      > struct),
      > the accessor name is used as the element name. Accessors
      > whose names are
      > local to their containing
      > types have unqualified element names, all others have
      > qualified names."
      >
      > as applying to accessors of any compound type, including
      > structs. I don't
      > think
      > it restricts struct member accessors to having only "names
      > local to their
      > containing types",
      > although that certainly the most common case. The definition
      > of "struct" in
      > 5.4 seems to impose
      > only the constraint that member names be unique.
      >

      I'm trying the draw from the two following fragments from 5.4, 5.4.1 that
      you quoted.
      5.4 member names be unique
      5.4.1 Accessor local to their containing type have unqualified element names

      From this it seems to infer that struct member accessor names must be
      unique, coupled with the fact they also must be unqualified.



      > So if the issue is that of accessor elements with qualified names in
      > general, (rather than the use of the
      > convenience element "SOAP-ENC:int" in particular) I don't
      > think there's a
      > prohibition. If you
      > can contrive to create such a thing, maybe you can. But it's something
      > you'll never see if, for instance,
      > the only structs you feed into the encoding are "C" structs, where the
      > accessor names are indeed local.
      >
      > Is this what you mean?

      Yes, this is what I'm trying to define in the process flow whether a simple
      check for QName for the member accessors of a struct defines a fault.

      The questions in my mind revolve around this logic.
      1) Are the accessor members of a struct, i.e., the containing types required
      to be unqualified.
      1.1) If true, then is a qualifed member accessor always a fault?
      1.2) If false (or conditional), then what defines an acceptable qualified
      member name?


      >
      > RC
      >
      > > Hi Bob,
      > >
      > > I don't the thread directly addressed the requirement of unqualified
      > > elements as contained types as SOAP-ENC:int(in example) is
      > a qualified
      > name
      > > seems to be in conflict Sec 5.4.1 regardless of how it
      > can/could/shall be
      > > defined in metadata.
      > >
      > > <SOAPStruct>
      > > <varString>blah</varString>
      > > <SOAP-ENC:int>22</SOAP-ENC:int>
      > > <varFloat>33.33</varFloat>
      > > </SOAPStruct>
      > >
      > > -Matt
      > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: Bob Cunnings [mailto:cunnings@...]
      > > > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 11:08 AM
      > > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Use of SOAP-ENC simple values
      > in structs
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Hello,
      > > >
      > > > If you mean the struct's "contained" types, this form would
      > > > only be possible
      > > > if the struct member
      > > > actually had the name "SOAP-ENC:int" in the struct definition.
      > > >
      > > > A discussion of this issue took place a while back [1]
      > > >
      > > > RC
      > > >
      > > > [1]
      > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/messagesearch?query
      > > > =SOAP-ENC%3Axx
      > > > x
      > > >
      > > > > Question...
      > > > >
      > > > > Since a simple value may be encoded (see below)
      > > > >
      > > > > <SOAP-ENC:int>22</SOAP-ENC:int>
      > > > >
      > > > > and from SEC 5.4.1 ..."Accessors whose names are local to
      > > > their containing
      > > > > types have unqualified element names;...
      > > > >
      > > > > would this indicate that a struct's containing types
      > (which could be
      > > > > composed of simple values) could not be encoded as above?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > -Matt
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > 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
      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 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.