Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-axis-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 1605 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jun 2002 10:06:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 1596 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2002 10:06:54 -0000 Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Subject: Re: WSDL Parameter order w/doclit To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.9a January 7, 2002 Message-ID: From: "Sam Ruby" Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 06:05:28 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D04NM201/04/M/IBM(Build M13TT_05222002 Pre-release 2|May 22, 2002) at 06/02/2002 06:07:06 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; Boundary="0__=0ABBE15FDFA554218f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBE15FDFA55421" Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --0__=0ABBE15FDFA554218f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBE15FDFA55421 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Russell Butek wrote: > > The WSDL is illegal. Two problems with parameterOrder. First, as you > said, it should list the parts. Secondly, as Sanjiva tells me, if > parameterOrder is used at all, it is illegal to NOT list all input > parameters. Yes, this is a doc/lit WSDL, but that really just means that > it sends a doc/lit message. We're generating RPC-style bindings whether or > not it's rpc/encoded, so we can't ignore the parameterOrder "hint". Illegal is a strong word - can you point to a reference? I can't find this restriction in the WSDL documentation, and furthermore it does seem to go out of its way to refer to this as a hint. >From their perspective, they *ARE* listing all of the parameters - WSDL2Java simply differs in its interpretation of what the parameters are... Net: the WSDL doc doesn't seem to preclude this. Other toolkits don't seem to mind. Nothing against Sanjiva, but I would like something a little more authoritative than "Sanjiva tells me". ;-) - Sam Ruby --0__=0ABBE15FDFA554218f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBE15FDFA55421 Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Russell Butek wrote:
>
> The WSDL is illegal.  Two problems with parameterOrder.  First, as you
> said, it should list the parts.  Secondly, as Sanjiva tells me, if
> parameterOrder is used at all, it is illegal to NOT list all input
> parameters.  Yes, this is a doc/lit WSDL, but that really just means that
> it sends a doc/lit message.  We're generating RPC-style bindings whether or
> not it's rpc/encoded, so we can't ignore the parameterOrder "hint".

Illegal is a strong word - can you point to a reference?  I can't find this restriction in the WSDL documentation, and furthermore it does seem to go out of its way to refer to this as a hint.

From their perspective, they *ARE* listing all of the parameters - WSDL2Java simply differs in its interpretation of what the parameters are...

Net: the WSDL doc doesn't seem to preclude this. Other toolkits don't seem to mind. Nothing against Sanjiva, but I would like something a little more authoritative than "Sanjiva tells me". ;-)

- Sam Ruby --0__=0ABBE15FDFA554218f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBE15FDFA55421--