Subject: [phpsoa] Re: nillable
Hi Mike,
Thanks for clarifying the use of pipe with the phpDocumentor
developer.
Yes, the # notation was simply an alternative way to identify a
complex type in a schema. It's largely orthogonal to nillable but I
mentioned it for a few reasons:
1
Subject: [phpsoa] Re: nillable
(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
can help in any way.
Best,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: phpsoa@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matthew Peters
Sent: May 15, 2007 1:47 PM
To: phpsoa
Subject: [phpsoa] Re: nillable
(Joining this thread a week late :-))
Mike, you have done a fantastic
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
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
Mike
I don't know either. I took a look at the code and you are right that
it seems to always apply nillable to the types that it finds. Maybe
it's trying to capture some optionality of PHP parameters but I'm not
sure. We need to get Matthew's view on it.
Simon
