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

issues of SOAP RPC responses (feedback request)

Expand Messages
  • Jacek Kopecky
    Hello fellow SOAP builders. 8-) In the W3C XML Protocol Working Group s [1] RPC Task Force [2] we are thinking now about the structure of the SOAP RPC response
    Message 1 of 33 , Aug 14, 2001
      Hello fellow SOAP builders. 8-)

      In the W3C XML Protocol Working Group's [1] RPC Task Force [2]
      we are thinking now about the structure of the SOAP RPC response
      message.

      We see the following problems and we have a possible solution,
      also added below. We'd like to gather your feedback on the
      problems, their importance as perceived by you, and on the
      presented possible solution.

      SOAP currently says [3] that the response is modelled as a
      struct where the first accessor is the return value followed by
      the accessors for the [in/out] and [out] parameters. The names of
      the struct and of the return value accessor are ignored.

      There is an issue listed at [4] about how to encode the result
      of a void method with no outgoing parameters. The current
      proposed resolution is that the result contains an empty struct.

      There will soon be an issue listed in the same list [5] about
      how to encode the result of a void method with outgoing
      parameters. See also an email at [6]. Both these issues show that
      there are problems with the "speciality" of the return value,
      which results in special treatment of this parameter of the call.

      In my opinion this special treatment of the return value is in
      direct violation of the SOAP section 5 data model encoding which
      states that in structs "accessor name is the only distinction
      among member values" [7]. Effectively, the result is modelled as
      an array in that something is accessed by its position, and at
      the same time it's modelled as a struct (for the outgoing
      parameters).

      One possible solution to this situation is the following
      rewording of the appropriate two bullets in SOAP section 7.1 [3]:

      - A method response is modelled as a struct.
      - The method response is viewed as a single struct containing an
      accessor for the return value and each [out] or [in/out]
      parameter. The accessor named "<methodName>ReturnValue" is the
      return value followed by the parameters in the same order as in
      the method signature.

      We would like you to post your feedback as soon as possible.
      We are specially interested in knowing how much of a problem it
      is to implement that special treatment of the return value
      interoperably; also we are interested in your opinion on the
      presented solution.

      Best regards

      Jacek Kopecky

      Idoox
      http://www.idoox.com/

      [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/
      [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/rpctf
      [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383533
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x16
      [5] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html
      [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Aug/0072.html
      [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383519
    • graham glass
      thanks! ... From: Mike Deem [mailto:mikedeem@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:13 PM To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE:
      Message 33 of 33 , Aug 15, 2001
        thanks!
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mike Deem [mailto:mikedeem@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:13 PM
        To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] what happens if a type field is missing?

        From near the end of [1]:

        Note that the above allows for two levels of defaulting for unspecified type definitions. An <element> with no referenced or included type definition will correspond to an element declaration which has the same type definition as the head of its substitution group if it identifies one, otherwise the ·ur-type definition·. This has the important consequence that the minimum valid element declaration, that is, one with only a name attribute and no contents, is also the most general, validating any combination of text and element content and allowing any attributes.

          == Mike ==

         

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

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: graham glass [mailto:graham@...]
        Sent:
        Wednesday, August 15, 2001 8:42 PM
        To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [soapbuilders] what happens if a type field is missing?

         

        hi guys,

         

        i'm doing some document/literal stuff with .NET, which maps a C# Array to

        the following WSDL snippet. notice that the element does not declare a

        type attribute.

         

        <s:complexType name="ArrayOfAnyType">

        -   <s:sequence>

            <s:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name="Object" nillable="true" />

         </s:sequence>

        </s:complexType>

         

        all of the other element declarations supply the usual type information. my question is:

        if a type attribute is not declared, does it default to anyType?

         

        cheers,

        graham



        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        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.




        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        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.