Can you point me to where in the spec it says that?
I can't find anyplace in the spec where it says a return
type is required. In fact it does talk about "implementation
specific manner" of when talking about what to do with
addParam/setReturn types so why can't we just make
this "our implementation manner"?
-Dug
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Return type
I agree with you, Doug. This is a JAX-RPCism. Personally, I think you should be able to specify as much or as little metadata as you want, and you takes your chances (for instance, there'll either be xsi:types on the return or not), but the other JAX-RPC experts disagreed.
--Glen
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Return type
If I create a Service object and a Call object w/o any WSDL
and then call addParameter() I get an error saying that
I _must_ also specify a return type. Why do we require this?
If the return type is so important then it should not be triggered
based on me calling addParameter it should just be required
in all cases. With the current logic if I have a no-arg method
I won't get this error, but if I have a one-arg method I will. This
inconsistency isn't good. Personally, I'd prefer if we didn't
require it at all. Can someone explain the logic here?
-Dug
