Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 95370 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2001 16:28:21 -0000 Received: from igw3.watson.ibm.com (198.81.209.18) by h31.sny.collab.net with SMTP; 30 Jan 2001 16:28:21 -0000 Received: from sp1n189at0.watson.ibm.com (sp1n189at0.watson.ibm.com [9.2.104.62]) by igw3.watson.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/05-14-1999) with ESMTP id LAA25980 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:27:41 -0500 Received: from lanka.watson.ibm.com (lanka.watson.ibm.com [9.2.20.73]) by sp1n189at0.watson.ibm.com (8.9.3/Feb-20-98) with ESMTP id LAA35280 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:27:41 -0500 Received: from LANKABOOK (LANKABOOK.watson.ibm.com [9.2.92.87] (may be forged)) by lanka.watson.ibm.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA25878 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:27:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001401c08ad9$c24741c0$575c0209@watson.ibm.com> From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" To: References: Subject: Re: Multiple RPCs Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:28:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N I helped write that part of the SOAP spec and I am certain that was never the intent. I could ask the others too to be certain, but I see no point in doing it. IMO having code around is no justification for doing *anything*. Sorry; I'm a strong believer in throwing away code :-). Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Davis" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 7:07 AM Subject: Re: Multiple RPCs > Actually I don't think you're right - they're not talking just > about messaging at that point - they do talk about RPC in that > same section. Section 4.3: > Typical uses of the Body element include marshalling > RPC calls and error reporting > When I read the spec, including section 7.1 (RPC and SOAP Body), > I see plurals being used - maybe it's a mistake, maybe I'm reading > too much into it - but what I really don't understand is the > strong objects to this. If no one sends us multiple RPCs in the > SOAPBody then the code in there will never get used and there's > no harm done. If someone does send us a SOAPBody with multiple > RPCs we have logic in there now that does something with it - if > people don't like our semantics then they're free to not use it > or they can write their own handler. I'm not suggesting that we > spend a lot of time on this (either in discussions or in coding), > *I'm mean let's get real* - the code is already in there!!!! > And the semantics are not exactly hard to understand - if people > don't like it then don't use it. I can't believe we're arguing > over whether to write code that's already been written. 8-) > -Dug > > > > "Sanjiva Weerawarana" on 01/30/2001 12:37:52 AM > > Please respond to soap-dev@xml.apache.org > > To: > cc: > Subject: Re: cvs commit: > xml-axis/java/src/org/apache/axis/messageSOAPEnvelope.java > > > > The spec is talking about *messaging* at this point and NOT about > RPC. From a messaging perspective, there's nothing special about > one body entry or the first body entry .. its just some XML to be > taken from here to there. When you put in RPC semantics, its a > different world. > > Sanjiva. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Doug Davis" > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 11:43 AM > Subject: Fw: cvs commit: > xml-axis/java/src/org/apache/axis/messageSOAPEnvelope.java > > > > Yes, in fact the spec says: > > All immediate child elements of the Body element are called > > body entries and each body entry is encoded as an independent > > element within the SOAP Body element. > > Notice that it doesn't say "the body entry", or "the immediate > > child". I believe they purposely used plurals here. > > -Dug > > > > Jacek wrote: > > > Hello Dug. 8-) > > > Are you sure SOAP allows multiple message bodies? Or more > > > precisely: does SOAP RPC allow for multiple calls within one body? I > > > always thought that the body maps to a single RPC call. My > > > understanding might have been too narrow, that's true. > > > But still, wouldn't passing more than one RPC call in a single SOAP > > > message be problematic in means of recognizing what is an RPC function > > > invocation and what is just an independent structure accessed via an > > > href? The SOAP spec says the RPC call is modelled as a struct, in this > > > the subsequent method calls would be indistniguishable from data. > > > I don't know, this just looks crazy. 8-) > > > > > > Jacek Kopecky > > > Idoox > > > > > > > > > > >