(Joining this thread a week late :-))
Mike, you have done a fantastic job of researching the options. I'm
puzzled why you say _two_ options: isn't there just one surviving
idea, which is what you and Graham have converged upon, the use of the
pipe symbol for both @param and @return, as in:
* @return http://example.org/contacts#contact|null The full
contact details
I agree that this is a fine idea. Would you like me to go ahead and
implement it? The parsing of the annotations is a bit of a rough area
of the code so it does not seem fair that you should have to implement
it as well, especially as you have made several other contributions in
quick succession recently. But you would however be very welcome to do
so if you wanted :-)
Matthew
On May 14, 2:37 pm, "Caplan, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi Graham,
>
> FYI, I just got word back from a PHPDocumentor developer re: @param
> support for multiple types:
>
> Hello Mike,
>
> That functionality is both in there and supported, though it looks like
> we could improve on how we demonstrate it in our manual. I've opened
> PEAR bug #11032
> (http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11032) to get the manual updated
> with better examples showing that "param type1|type2" usage, and will
> also add more detail to the return tag's doc.
>
> Thanks for the posting...
> Chuck
>
> Now that we know that this is supported behavior, any thoughts on the
> two outlined methods for supporting nillable parameters?
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: phpsoa@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Graham Charters
> > Sent: May 12, 2007 6:16 PM
> > To: phpsoa
> > Subject: [phpsoa] Re: nillable
>
> > Hi Mike,
>
> > One of the goals of the SCA annotations has been to try to preserve
> > phpDocumentor generation, so I like your suggestion a lot. I took a
> > look at the phpDocumentor documentation and could only see mention of
> > the pipe for multiple function returns, but not for parameters. I
> > gave it a whirl for both and phpDocumentor 1.3.0 doesn't appear to do
> > anything special with the pipe and doesn't care if it's included in an
> > @param.
>
> > If we include the modification suggested in another thread where we
> > would change the way complex types are specified to use the #
> > character (will improve the quality of the phpDocumentor generation),
> > then an example SCA component might look like this:
>
> > /**
> > * Service for managing email contacts
> > *
> > * @service
> > * @binding.soap
> > * @typeshttp://example.org/contactscontacts.xsd
> > *
> > */
> > class ContactService {
>
> > /**
> > * Retrieve contact details
> > *
> > * @param string|null $shortname The short name of the contact
> > * @returnhttp://example.org/contacts#contact|null The full
> > contact details
> > */
> > public function retrieve($shortname) {
> > }
>
> > }
>
> > Let me know if I've misunderstood your proposal.
>
> > The only reason I can think for the generation of nillable all the
> > time would be to support as many calling options with as little
> > configuration as possible. I can understand why the other way round
> > might be preferable and adding control through the annotations gets my
> > +1.
>
> > Graham
>
> > On 11 May, 18:40, Michael Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > I've been looking into this issue further. The condition(s) to
> > > determine if a callable method parameter is nillable more tricky
> than
> > > I initially thought. I was hoping that a simple
> > > ReflectionParameter::allowsNull() call would be all that is
> > > necessary. However, and this makes perfect sense, all calls to
> > > allowsNull() will return true, with exception to parameters that use
> > > type hinting. Since type hinting does not cover primitives, this
> > does
> > > not cut it.
>
> > > I'm thinking that this boils down primarily to a PHPdoc issue. With
> > > the @param tag in PEAR's PHPDocumentor, you can split types with a
> > > pipe to indicate multiple acceptable types. So a "@param
> string|null
> > > $var" could be used to determine if the parameter is nillable or
> not.
> > > ReflectionParameter::allowsNull() could also be called to validate
> > > claims of something being nillable, should it be not using type
> > hints.
>
> > > This would require a change to how SCA parses doc blocks to support
> > > piped types. However, probably there should be only one case where
> > > multiple types can be defined (this case), as it doesn't make sense
> > in
> > > other SCA circumstances.
>
> > > Setting everything to nillable (as it currently does) does not make
> > > sense as I see it. If a system does not get put into place that
> > > allows for users to control how nillable is used in the generated
> > > WSDL, as a minimum, I think it should be suppressed. I think it
> > makes
> > > more sense to assume all parameters as not accepting null values,
> > then
> > > the reverse.
>
> > > Thoughts?
>
> > > Mike
>
> > > On May 9, 8:02 am, Caroline Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Caplan, Michael wrote:
> > > > > Forgive my ignorance, but why does the WSDL generator define all
> > types
> > > > > as nillable? Should that not be defined depending on the
> > prototype of
> > > > > the method it is bound to?
>
> > > > You're right, there's a lot of information available from the
> > > > ReflectionParameter methods (allowsNull(), isOptional(),
> > > > isDefaultValueAvailable(), ...) which isn't being exploited at the
> > > > moment, but could potentially be used to improve the fidelity of
> > the
> > > > generated WSDL. It's likely that Matthew already thought about
> this
> > when
> > > > he developed that code and will know what the issues are. I'd say
> > these
> > > > enhancements sound like wish-list items for someone ...
>
> > E-mail messages may contain viruses, worms, or other malicious code. By
> > reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full
> > responsibility for taking protective action against such code. Henry Schein
> > is not liable for any loss or damage arising from this message.
>
> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone
> else is unauthorized.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"phpsoa" group.
To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
