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

Schema + soapenc:root

Expand Messages
  • Matt Long
    I noticed that some of the MS implementations were using root= 1 on the serialization roots now. Regarding use of soapenc:root and the 2001 schema
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 10, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I noticed that some of the MS implementations were using root='1' on the
      serialization roots now. Regarding use of soapenc:root and the 2001 schema
      http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/ , it appears the default is '0',
      i.e., non-serialization root. Therefore, according to schema, *if* root is
      not present, then you are declaring a non-serialization root!

      With the exception of MS, root appears to be used in reverse context in the
      rest of the implementations, AFAIK.

      Comments!

      Thx,

      -Matt
    • Simon Fell
      That certainly doesn t jive with the prose description for root, in particular, the last sentence of section 5.6 is The attribute does not have a default
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 10, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        That certainly doesn't jive with the prose description for root, in
        particular, the last sentence of section 5.6 is "The attribute does
        not have a default value."

        I seem to recall last time root was discussed in detail that putting
        root='1' on the RPC root [aka methodName element] wasn't correct, but
        i'd have to check the archives to be sure.

        Cheers
        Simon
        www.pocketsoap.com

        On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:36:13 -0600, in soap you wrote:

        >I noticed that some of the MS implementations were using root='1' on the
        >serialization roots now. Regarding use of soapenc:root and the 2001 schema
        >http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/ , it appears the default is '0',
        >i.e., non-serialization root. Therefore, according to schema, *if* root is
        >not present, then you are declaring a non-serialization root!
        >
        >With the exception of MS, root appears to be used in reverse context in the
        >rest of the implementations, AFAIK.
        >
        >Comments!
        >
        >Thx,
        >
        >-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/
        >
      • Bob Cunnings
        Hi Matt, Hmmm, per Section 5.6 [1] of the SOAP spec, this would indicate that they are serialization roots , as opposed to true roots of the object graph .
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 10, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Matt,

          Hmmm, per Section 5.6 [1] of the SOAP spec, this would indicate
          that they are 'serialization roots', as opposed to 'true roots of the
          object graph'. Now considering a single header entry in isolation,
          defined as part of some SOAP extension, does an instance of
          such represent a single, self contained object graph? If so, then the
          header entry element is the 'true root', and no 'soap-enc:root'
          attribute is necessary? Would not the same be true for the struct
          representing an RPC in the body of a SOAP message?

          My point is that if these are instances of 'true roots', then the
          omission of the 'soap-enc:root' element doesn't mean that one is
          declaring a non-serialization root, per section 5.6 (?). The primary
          purpose of 'soap-enc:root' seems to be a negative one, to indicate
          non-roots explicitly.

          It's interesting that the schema sets "0" as the default, as most
          interpretations of Section 5.6 take "1" to be the logical default
          value, e.g. [3].

          This has always been a little confusing, as well as heavily
          discussed. The approach offered in a writeup [2] of issue #78
          (SOAP 1.2) seems to drop the notion of 'true root', and focus on
          serialization. Maybe the MS people are getting ready for SOAP 1.2
          ?

          RC

          [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383501
          [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-
          app/2001Jun/0110.html
          [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-
          comments/2001Jun/0030.html

          > I noticed that some of the MS implementations were using root='1' on the
          > serialization roots now. Regarding use of soapenc:root and the 2001 schema
          > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/ , it appears the default is '0',
          > i.e., non-serialization root. Therefore, according to schema, *if* root is
          > not present, then you are declaring a non-serialization root!
          >
          > With the exception of MS, root appears to be used in reverse context in the
          > rest of the implementations, AFAIK.
          >
          > Comments!
          >
          > Thx,
          >
          > -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/
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.