On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 15:01 -0500, Tres Seaver wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 12/15/2010 11:49 AM, Brad Allen wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Luca Dariz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 15/12/2010 04:26, Brad Allen wrote: > >>> > >>> A decorator called "document" is just too generic, non-obvious to > >>> anyone who might not understand about the different encoding styles. A > >>> "style" keyword parameter to a "soap" decorator seems a lot more clear > >>> to me. > >> > >> I personally agree with having a "style" parameter. I'll also keep "rpc" as > >> the default style. > > > > Yes, since rpc encoded style was previously the default for we should > > keep it that way. If no "style" keyword param is provided, the soap > > decorator should default to rpc encoded. > > > > We'll have some soaplib package level constants for this, and should > > think about the right names. How about soaplib.RPC_ENCODED and > > soaplib.DOC_LITERAL? Chris tells me that supporting > > soaplib.RPC_LITERAL and soaplib.DOC_ENCODED are rarely used and > > probably not worth the effort of supporting, so we probably won't add > > those constants. > > Per the WSDL spec[1], "literal" and "encoded" are orthagonal to the > "style" bit for the method signature. Assuming we want to let folks > change it I would give them their own argument, maybe '_soap_use' or '_use'? > > Note that nothing in soaplib actually supports 'use="encoded"' at all, > AFAICT: the trunk hard-wires 'use="literal"' everywhere. I don't > understand the semantics of 'use="encoded"' well enough to even guess at > the effort of implementing that feature. >
Initially we can use just use style constants soaplib.RPC_STYLE and soaplib.DOC_STYLE. How does that sound. Strictly speaking we can have the following four style/use secinarios: 1) RPC/encoded 2) RPC/literal 3) Doc/encoded 4) Doc/literal and supposedly there is a non-soap specified style/use refereed to as doc/literal-wrapped that is advocated by some people at IBM. The problem with using rpc/encoded and doc/encoded is that while they are valid WSDL they are not WSI-compliant. I'd like to provide a consistent model and try to be compliant with as many consumers/clients as possible. So, should we attempt to provide support for the encoded spec? Or would it be better to continue to hard-code our use='' to literal and make sure that messages our server generates are consistent. > > > Tres. > - -- > =================================================================== > Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [email protected] > Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAk0JHpsACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4PKQCguvOmpCEUvnIxxs/jtu/7dKhf > /MAAnRESWqcuAiKVyF8Q+eQegjj378P2 > =o7ty > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Soap mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/soap _______________________________________________ Soap mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/soap
