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

i like soap, that is all.

Expand Messages
  • noor_glass
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 8 12:44 AM
    • Grahame Grieve
      hi all I am reading the wsdl s found at http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/attachments.htm and the WSDL spec at http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl The exact nature of
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 6, 2003
        hi all

        I am reading the wsdl's found at
        http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/attachments.htm
        and the WSDL spec at http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl

        The exact nature of the link between a part of
        the SOAP message and the attachment is underspecified.
        in the example, and the soapbuilders examples, the
        name of the message part matches the name of the
        mime part, so the binary is expected to be a reference
        to an attachment. But this is not stated explicitly.

        Some questions:

        1. Is the soapbuilders example right to use base64Binary?
        (http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/mime-rpc.wsdl)

        2. Should a receiving application that works with the
        services described in http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/mime-rpc.wsdl
        be able to accept the binary parameter as either a
        base64Binary (as stated in the WSDL) or as an attachment,
        or should that WSDL be understood to say that the content
        can only come as an attachment?

        3. if the content that will go in the attachment is
        part of a complex type, how can the names be used to
        link the content to the attachment?

        4. a btw, the example WSDL seems to assume that the default
        namespace applies within an attribute with a QName type.
        My XML is weak, but I've not seen this before, and the
        schema spec appears to rule this out. Is this intended?

        5. while I'm at it: Is there any working implementations
        of these WSDL's?

        thanks
        Grahame
      • Grahame Grieve
        no response usually mean that the question I asked was stupid. If it is, can someone please tell me off-line thanks Grahame
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 7, 2003
          no response usually mean that the question I asked was stupid.
          If it is, can someone please tell me off-line

          thanks
          Grahame

          At 23:32 6/7/2003, Grahame Grieve wrote:

          >hi all
          >
          >I am reading the wsdl's found at
          >http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/attachments.htm
          >and the WSDL spec at http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl
          >
          >The exact nature of the link between a part of
          >the SOAP message and the attachment is underspecified.
          >in the example, and the soapbuilders examples, the
          >name of the message part matches the name of the
          >mime part, so the binary is expected to be a reference
          >to an attachment. But this is not stated explicitly.
          >
          >Some questions:
          >
          >1. Is the soapbuilders example right to use base64Binary?
          > (http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/mime-rpc.wsdl)
          >
          >2. Should a receiving application that works with the
          > services described in http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/mime-rpc.wsdl
          > be able to accept the binary parameter as either a
          > base64Binary (as stated in the WSDL) or as an attachment,
          > or should that WSDL be understood to say that the content
          > can only come as an attachment?
          >
          >3. if the content that will go in the attachment is
          > part of a complex type, how can the names be used to
          > link the content to the attachment?
          >
          >4. a btw, the example WSDL seems to assume that the default
          > namespace applies within an attribute with a QName type.
          > My XML is weak, but I've not seen this before, and the
          > schema spec appears to rule this out. Is this intended?
          >
          >5. while I'm at it: Is there any working implementations
          > of these WSDL's?
          >
          >thanks
          >Grahame
          >
          >
          >
          >-----------------------------------------------------------------
          >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.