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

Schema and WSDL question for array like elements.

Expand Messages
  • wes_moulder
    Below, I ve attached a schema element for how we serialize out a hashmap. Our method of doing this has recently been called into question, and I wanted to
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 16, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Below, I've attached a schema element for how we serialize out a
      hashmap. Our method of doing this has recently been called into
      question, and I wanted to bring it to the group and see what was said
      about it. The schema is valid XMLSchema, but since it looks like an
      array and WSDL section 2.2 says that all arrays should extend
      soapenc:Array and follow the rules for that type, it was suggested
      that this is not actually valid for a Section 5 "encoded" message.

      Thanks for your help,
      --Wes



      -- schema element --

      <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
      xmlns:tns="http://www.themindelectric.com/collections/"
      targetNamespace="http://www.themindelectric.com/collections/">
      </complexType>
      <complexType name="hashmap">
      <sequence>
      <element name="item" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
      <complexType>
      <sequence>
      <element name="key" type="anyType" />
      <element name="value" type="anyType" />
      </sequence>
      </complexType>
      </element>
      </sequence>
      </complexType>
      </schema>
    • Simon Fell
      It only needs to extend soapenc:Array, if you re serializing it as an array. So if your SOAP serialization is
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 16, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        It only needs to extend soapenc:Array, if you're serializing it as an array. So if your SOAP serialization is

        <hash soapenc:arrayType="foo:hashItem[2]">
        <item>
        <key xsi:type="xsd:string">one</key>
        <value xsi:type="xsd:int">1</key>
        </item>
        <item>
        <key xsi:type="xsd:string">two</key>
        <value xsi:type="xsd:int">2</value>
        </item>
        </hash>

        then the schema is wrong, but if your seralization is [which i believe matches what Apache & SOAP::Lite do]

        <hash>
        <item>
        <key xsi:type="xsd:string">one</key>
        <value xsi:type="xsd:int">1</value>
        </item>
        <item>
        <key xsi:type="xsd:string">two</key>
        <value xsi:type="xsd:int">2</value>
        </item>
        </hash>

        then you're fine, that's valid section 5 as well, its a generic compound type[1], although some toolkits would prefer a serialization like the first example, but lets not open up that bag of worms again :)

        Cheers
        Simon
        www.pocketsoap.com
        [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383521

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: wes_moulder [mailto:wmoulder@...]
        > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:24 AM
        > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [soapbuilders] Schema and WSDL question for array like
        > elements.
        >
        >
        > Below, I've attached a schema element for how we serialize out a
        > hashmap. Our method of doing this has recently been called into
        > question, and I wanted to bring it to the group and see what was said
        > about it. The schema is valid XMLSchema, but since it looks like an
        > array and WSDL section 2.2 says that all arrays should extend
        > soapenc:Array and follow the rules for that type, it was suggested
        > that this is not actually valid for a Section 5 "encoded" message.
        >
        > Thanks for your help,
        > --Wes
        >
        >
        >
        > -- schema element --
        >
        > <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
        > xmlns:tns="http://www.themindelectric.com/collections/"
        > targetNamespace="http://www.themindelectric.com/collections/">
        > </complexType>
        > <complexType name="hashmap">
        > <sequence>
        > <element name="item" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
        > <complexType>
        > <sequence>
        > <element name="key" type="anyType" />
        > <element name="value" type="anyType" />
        > </sequence>
        > </complexType>
        > </element>
        > </sequence>
        > </complexType>
        > </schema>
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > ---------------------~-->
        > Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
        > Do you need to encrypt all your online transactions? Find
        > the perfect solution in this FREE Guide from VeriSign.
        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/vCuuSA/UdiDAA/yigFAA/W6uqlB/TM
        > --------------------------------------------------------------
        > -------~->
        >
        > -----------------------------------------------------------------
        > 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/
      • Jacek Kopecky
        Hi all. 8-) Is it really the case that the Apache serialization of hashtables is _not_ a SOAP Encoding array? If this is the case, I m strongly objecting to
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 16, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi all. 8-)
          Is it really the case that the Apache serialization of
          hashtables is _not_ a SOAP Encoding array? If this is the case,
          I'm strongly objecting to this decision and I have to ask for the
          rationale for it.
          Best regards,

          Jacek Kopecky

          Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
          http://www.systinet.com/



          On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Simon Fell wrote:

          > It only needs to extend soapenc:Array, if you're serializing it as an array. So if your SOAP serialization is
          >
          > <hash soapenc:arrayType="foo:hashItem[2]">
          > <item>
          > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">one</key>
          > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">1</key>
          > </item>
          > <item>
          > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">two</key>
          > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">2</value>
          > </item>
          > </hash>
          >
          > then the schema is wrong, but if your seralization is [which i believe matches what Apache & SOAP::Lite do]
          >
          > <hash>
          > <item>
          > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">one</key>
          > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">1</value>
          > </item>
          > <item>
          > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">two</key>
          > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">2</value>
          > </item>
          > </hash>
          >
          > then you're fine, that's valid section 5 as well, its a generic compound type[1], although some toolkits would prefer a serialization like the first example, but lets not open up that bag of worms again :)
          >
          > Cheers
          > Simon
          > www.pocketsoap.com
          > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383521
          >
        • Simon Fell
          There have been a number of attempts to define a serialization for hashtables, dictionaries, etc in the past on this list, we ve never been able to come up
          Message 4 of 6 , Jan 16, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            There have been a number of attempts to define a serialization for hashtables, dictionaries, etc in the past on this list, we've never been able to come up with anything that everyone agrees to.

            Its all in the archives, try the long thread that starts with
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/1331

            Cheers
            Simon
            www.pocketsoap.com

            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@...]
            > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 10:38 AM
            > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Schema and WSDL question for array like
            > elements.
            >
            >
            > Hi all. 8-)
            > Is it really the case that the Apache serialization of
            > hashtables is _not_ a SOAP Encoding array? If this is the case,
            > I'm strongly objecting to this decision and I have to ask for the
            > rationale for it.
            > Best regards,
            >
            > Jacek Kopecky
            >
            > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
            > http://www.systinet.com/
            >
            >
            >
            > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Simon Fell wrote:
            >
            > > It only needs to extend soapenc:Array, if you're
            > serializing it as an array. So if your SOAP serialization is
            > >
            > > <hash soapenc:arrayType="foo:hashItem[2]">
            > > <item>
            > > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">one</key>
            > > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">1</key>
            > > </item>
            > > <item>
            > > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">two</key>
            > > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">2</value>
            > > </item>
            > > </hash>
            > >
            > > then the schema is wrong, but if your seralization is
            > [which i believe matches what Apache & SOAP::Lite do]
            > >
            > > <hash>
            > > <item>
            > > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">one</key>
            > > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">1</value>
            > > </item>
            > > <item>
            > > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">two</key>
            > > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">2</value>
            > > </item>
            > > </hash>
            > >
            > > then you're fine, that's valid section 5 as well, its a
            > generic compound type[1], although some toolkits would prefer
            > a serialization like the first example, but lets not open up
            > that bag of worms again :)
            > >
            > > Cheers
            > > Simon
            > > www.pocketsoap.com
            > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383521
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > ---------------------~-->
            > Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
            > Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
            > Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
            > http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/W6uqlB/TM
            > --------------------------------------------------------------
            > -------~->
            >
            > -----------------------------------------------------------------
            > 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/
          • Jacek Kopecky
            I can imagine such a situation (and I ve read most of the thread), but I was asking about the current practice - the resolution of the thread. Jacek Kopecky
            Message 5 of 6 , Jan 16, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              I can imagine such a situation (and I've read most of the
              thread), but I was asking about the current practice - the
              resolution of the thread.

              Jacek Kopecky

              Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
              http://www.systinet.com/



              On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Simon Fell wrote:

              > There have been a number of attempts to define a serialization for hashtables, dictionaries, etc in the past on this list, we've never been able to come up with anything that everyone agrees to.
              >
              > Its all in the archives, try the long thread that starts with
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/1331
              >
              > Cheers
              > Simon
              > www.pocketsoap.com
              >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@...]
              > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 10:38 AM
              > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Schema and WSDL question for array like
              > > elements.
              > >
              > >
              > > Hi all. 8-)
              > > Is it really the case that the Apache serialization of
              > > hashtables is _not_ a SOAP Encoding array? If this is the case,
              > > I'm strongly objecting to this decision and I have to ask for the
              > > rationale for it.
              > > Best regards,
              > >
              > > Jacek Kopecky
              > >
              > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
              > > http://www.systinet.com/
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Simon Fell wrote:
              > >
              > > > It only needs to extend soapenc:Array, if you're
              > > serializing it as an array. So if your SOAP serialization is
              > > >
              > > > <hash soapenc:arrayType="foo:hashItem[2]">
              > > > <item>
              > > > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">one</key>
              > > > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">1</key>
              > > > </item>
              > > > <item>
              > > > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">two</key>
              > > > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">2</value>
              > > > </item>
              > > > </hash>
              > > >
              > > > then the schema is wrong, but if your seralization is
              > > [which i believe matches what Apache & SOAP::Lite do]
              > > >
              > > > <hash>
              > > > <item>
              > > > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">one</key>
              > > > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">1</value>
              > > > </item>
              > > > <item>
              > > > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">two</key>
              > > > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">2</value>
              > > > </item>
              > > > </hash>
              > > >
              > > > then you're fine, that's valid section 5 as well, its a
              > > generic compound type[1], although some toolkits would prefer
              > > a serialization like the first example, but lets not open up
              > > that bag of worms again :)
              > > >
              > > > Cheers
              > > > Simon
              > > > www.pocketsoap.com
              > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383521
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > > ---------------------~-->
              > > Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
              > > Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
              > > Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
              > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/W6uqlB/TM
              > > --------------------------------------------------------------
              > > -------~->
              > >
              > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
              > > 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/
              >
              >
            • Simon Fell
              I beleive the current situation is that Apache & SOAP::Lite use the second serialization, don t know about any others. PocketSOAP can handle either, but has no
              Message 6 of 6 , Jan 16, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I beleive the current situation is that Apache & SOAP::Lite use the second serialization, don't know about any others. PocketSOAP can handle either, but has no explicit support for it.

                Cheers
                Simon

                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@...]
                > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:20 AM
                > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Schema and WSDL question for array like
                > elements.
                >
                >
                > I can imagine such a situation (and I've read most of the
                > thread), but I was asking about the current practice - the
                > resolution of the thread.
                >
                > Jacek Kopecky
                >
                > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                > http://www.systinet.com/
                >
                >
                >
                > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Simon Fell wrote:
                >
                > > There have been a number of attempts to define a
                > serialization for hashtables, dictionaries, etc in the past
                > on this list, we've never been able to come up with anything
                > that everyone agrees to.
                > >
                > > Its all in the archives, try the long thread that starts with
                > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/1331
                > >
                > > Cheers
                > > Simon
                > > www.pocketsoap.com
                > >
                > > > -----Original Message-----
                > > > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@...]
                > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 10:38 AM
                > > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                > > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Schema and WSDL question for
                > array like
                > > > elements.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Hi all. 8-)
                > > > Is it really the case that the Apache serialization of
                > > > hashtables is _not_ a SOAP Encoding array? If this is the case,
                > > > I'm strongly objecting to this decision and I have to
                > ask for the
                > > > rationale for it.
                > > > Best regards,
                > > >
                > > > Jacek Kopecky
                > > >
                > > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                > > > http://www.systinet.com/
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Simon Fell wrote:
                > > >
                > > > > It only needs to extend soapenc:Array, if you're
                > > > serializing it as an array. So if your SOAP serialization is
                > > > >
                > > > > <hash soapenc:arrayType="foo:hashItem[2]">
                > > > > <item>
                > > > > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">one</key>
                > > > > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">1</key>
                > > > > </item>
                > > > > <item>
                > > > > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">two</key>
                > > > > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">2</value>
                > > > > </item>
                > > > > </hash>
                > > > >
                > > > > then the schema is wrong, but if your seralization is
                > > > [which i believe matches what Apache & SOAP::Lite do]
                > > > >
                > > > > <hash>
                > > > > <item>
                > > > > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">one</key>
                > > > > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">1</value>
                > > > > </item>
                > > > > <item>
                > > > > <key xsi:type="xsd:string">two</key>
                > > > > <value xsi:type="xsd:int">2</value>
                > > > > </item>
                > > > > </hash>
                > > > >
                > > > > then you're fine, that's valid section 5 as well, its a
                > > > generic compound type[1], although some toolkits would prefer
                > > > a serialization like the first example, but lets not open up
                > > > that bag of worms again :)
                > > > >
                > > > > Cheers
                > > > > Simon
                > > > > www.pocketsoap.com
                > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383521
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                > > > ---------------------~-->
                > > > Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
                > > > Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
                > > > Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
                > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/W6uqlB/TM
                > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
                > > > -------~->
                > > >
                > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                > > > 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.