You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to soap-dev@xml.apache.org by Glen Daniels <gd...@macromedia.com> on 2001/12/13 17:44:47 UTC
FEEDBACK REQUESTED - Issues regarding Array encoding for SOAP 1.2
[If you reply to this, please do so on xml-dist-app@w3.org]
Hi folks!
The XML Protocol WG would like to solicit some feedback with regard to array
encoding. The particular issues (from our issues list) related to this are
#s 144 [1] and 161 [2], with Jacek's latest proposal at [3]. I'll briefly
summarize the issues, and then present our current list of potential options
in hopes that you who are actually using and implementing this stuff can
help to guide us in making some decisions.
ISSUE 144 - the basic problem here is that the arrayType element in SOAP 1.1
blurs several pieces of information (the type of array elements and the
dimensionality/size of the array) into one string which then must be
"micro-parsed" in some fairly complicated ways. The ensuing discussion also
questioned the utility of sparse/Partially-Transmitted (P.T.) arrays.
ISSUE 161 - this is essentially a bad word choice in the spec, where array
members are spec'ed as "independent elements" when in fact they aren't.
At a recent meeting, we decided that the group liked the bulk of Jacek's
proposal, which solves issue 144 by splitting out the arrayType attribute
into two (arraySize and itemType) and also deals with issue 161 (by
replacing the offending wording).
The point on which we decided more discussion was required involved whether
to eliminate sparse arrays entirely. Essentially some felt that P.T. arrays
were too complicated for the base spec, and if you wanted to do, for
instance, a sparse update of a large database, you could do it by sending an
array of offset/value pairs. Others felt the sparse array use-cases were
compelling and we should definitely leave them in the spec.
So, the questions to you are these:
1) Do you use P.T./sparse arrays currently? If so, what are the scenarios
(array updates, avoiding sending lots of nulls, etc...)?
2) Would it bother you to see them go away in SOAP 1.2?
Thanks very much in advance for any information you can provide.
--Glen
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x144
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x161
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0186.html
Re: [soapbuilders] FEEDBACK REQUESTED - Issues regarding Array encoding for SOAP 1.2
Posted by Alan Kent <aj...@mds.rmit.edu.au>.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:44:47AM -0500, Glen Daniels wrote:
> 1) Do you use P.T./sparse arrays currently? If so, what are the scenarios
> (array updates, avoiding sending lots of nulls, etc...)?
I attempt to decode them, but never send them.
> 2) Would it bother you to see them go away in SOAP 1.2?
I would like to see them go awy in SOAP 1.2.
My reasons are:
* Why are p-t-a's considered more important than all the other data
structures out there? SOAP does not do the others, so why do p-t-a?
Keep SOAP simple.
* P-t-a can be easily implemented by using a different data structure.
So removing them from core SOAP *does not* mean they cannot be used in
SOAP applications.
* There is no differentiation at present in types of arrays, sparse arrays,
and p-t-a arrays on the wire or in WSDL files. This is bad as some people
say p-t-a arrays are different to arrays, others say they are the same,
the SOAP spec indicates they are different - but they use identical
type information!
* The most basic array type I think should match well general programming
language array types - and omitted array items does not fit this.
* They add significant extra processing when encoding/decoding arrays
(because they are not different). Try writing decoding code with then
and without them. There is a big difference in length, which will impact
performance of implementations.
So I feel that either
* Remove p-t-a and sparse from SOAP 1.2 and let a WSDL file do it
(eg. come up with standard WSDL encodings for p-t-a arrays, and lots
of other data structures such as Maps etc)
OR
* Make p-t-a/sparse a different type to simple arrays in the SOAP spec.
Eg: if the current type is split into itemType and arraySize, add
another one saying of sparse or not etc.
Alan
Re: [soapbuilders] FEEDBACK REQUESTED - Issues regarding Array encoding for SOAP 1.2
Posted by Rosimildo da Silva <ro...@yahoo.com>.
From: Glen Daniels
To: 'soapbuilders@groups.yahoo.com' ; 'SOAP@discuss.develop.com' ; 'axis-dev@xml.apache.org' ; 'soap-dev@xml.apache.org'
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:44 AM
Subject: [soapbuilders] FEEDBACK REQUESTED - Issues regarding Array encoding for SOAP 1.2
So, the questions to you are these:
1) Do you use P.T./sparse arrays currently? If so, what are the scenarios
(array updates, avoiding sending lots of nulls, etc...)?
No. I do not use them. They do not make sense on C++/Java languages
2) Would it bother you to see them go away in SOAP 1.2?
I would be extremely happy if they go away. <g>
Rosimildo.
Re: [soapbuilders] FEEDBACK REQUESTED - Issues regarding Array encoding for SOAP 1.2
Posted by Alan Kent <aj...@mds.rmit.edu.au>.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:44:47AM -0500, Glen Daniels wrote:
> 1) Do you use P.T./sparse arrays currently? If so, what are the scenarios
> (array updates, avoiding sending lots of nulls, etc...)?
I attempt to decode them, but never send them.
> 2) Would it bother you to see them go away in SOAP 1.2?
I would like to see them go awy in SOAP 1.2.
My reasons are:
* Why are p-t-a's considered more important than all the other data
structures out there? SOAP does not do the others, so why do p-t-a?
Keep SOAP simple.
* P-t-a can be easily implemented by using a different data structure.
So removing them from core SOAP *does not* mean they cannot be used in
SOAP applications.
* There is no differentiation at present in types of arrays, sparse arrays,
and p-t-a arrays on the wire or in WSDL files. This is bad as some people
say p-t-a arrays are different to arrays, others say they are the same,
the SOAP spec indicates they are different - but they use identical
type information!
* The most basic array type I think should match well general programming
language array types - and omitted array items does not fit this.
* They add significant extra processing when encoding/decoding arrays
(because they are not different). Try writing decoding code with then
and without them. There is a big difference in length, which will impact
performance of implementations.
So I feel that either
* Remove p-t-a and sparse from SOAP 1.2 and let a WSDL file do it
(eg. come up with standard WSDL encodings for p-t-a arrays, and lots
of other data structures such as Maps etc)
OR
* Make p-t-a/sparse a different type to simple arrays in the SOAP spec.
Eg: if the current type is split into itemType and arraySize, add
another one saying of sparse or not etc.
Alan
Re: [soapbuilders] FEEDBACK REQUESTED - Issues regarding Array encoding for SOAP 1.2
Posted by Rosimildo da Silva <ro...@yahoo.com>.
From: Glen Daniels
To: 'soapbuilders@groups.yahoo.com' ; 'SOAP@discuss.develop.com' ; 'axis-dev@xml.apache.org' ; 'soap-dev@xml.apache.org'
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:44 AM
Subject: [soapbuilders] FEEDBACK REQUESTED - Issues regarding Array encoding for SOAP 1.2
So, the questions to you are these:
1) Do you use P.T./sparse arrays currently? If so, what are the scenarios
(array updates, avoiding sending lots of nulls, etc...)?
No. I do not use them. They do not make sense on C++/Java languages
2) Would it bother you to see them go away in SOAP 1.2?
I would be extremely happy if they go away. <g>
Rosimildo.
Re: [soapbuilders] FEEDBACK REQUESTED - Issues regarding Array encoding for SOAP 1.2
Posted by Alan Kent <aj...@mds.rmit.edu.au>.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:44:47AM -0500, Glen Daniels wrote:
> 1) Do you use P.T./sparse arrays currently? If so, what are the scenarios
> (array updates, avoiding sending lots of nulls, etc...)?
I attempt to decode them, but never send them.
> 2) Would it bother you to see them go away in SOAP 1.2?
I would like to see them go awy in SOAP 1.2.
My reasons are:
* Why are p-t-a's considered more important than all the other data
structures out there? SOAP does not do the others, so why do p-t-a?
Keep SOAP simple.
* P-t-a can be easily implemented by using a different data structure.
So removing them from core SOAP *does not* mean they cannot be used in
SOAP applications.
* There is no differentiation at present in types of arrays, sparse arrays,
and p-t-a arrays on the wire or in WSDL files. This is bad as some people
say p-t-a arrays are different to arrays, others say they are the same,
the SOAP spec indicates they are different - but they use identical
type information!
* The most basic array type I think should match well general programming
language array types - and omitted array items does not fit this.
* They add significant extra processing when encoding/decoding arrays
(because they are not different). Try writing decoding code with then
and without them. There is a big difference in length, which will impact
performance of implementations.
So I feel that either
* Remove p-t-a and sparse from SOAP 1.2 and let a WSDL file do it
(eg. come up with standard WSDL encodings for p-t-a arrays, and lots
of other data structures such as Maps etc)
OR
* Make p-t-a/sparse a different type to simple arrays in the SOAP spec.
Eg: if the current type is split into itemType and arraySize, add
another one saying of sparse or not etc.
Alan
Re: [soapbuilders] FEEDBACK REQUESTED - Issues regarding Array encoding for SOAP 1.2
Posted by Rosimildo da Silva <ro...@yahoo.com>.
From: Glen Daniels
To: 'soapbuilders@groups.yahoo.com' ; 'SOAP@discuss.develop.com' ; 'axis-dev@xml.apache.org' ; 'soap-dev@xml.apache.org'
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:44 AM
Subject: [soapbuilders] FEEDBACK REQUESTED - Issues regarding Array encoding for SOAP 1.2
So, the questions to you are these:
1) Do you use P.T./sparse arrays currently? If so, what are the scenarios
(array updates, avoiding sending lots of nulls, etc...)?
No. I do not use them. They do not make sense on C++/Java languages
2) Would it bother you to see them go away in SOAP 1.2?
I would be extremely happy if they go away. <g>
Rosimildo.