On 24.07.2007, at 09:44, Matthew Graham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Except that it makes no sense to include a <nodes> element when you
> are also including a continuation token, whereas you could envisage
> that the first listing you request is detail=max and then
> subsequent ones might just detail=min. Also if the detail element
> is missing then what is the default setting: min or max?
True, which is how it probably got to this state - the intention being that the first call both node and detail must be included but for continuation calls only the token is really needed - this could of course be made more explicit within the WSDL with a "xsd choice" construct.
I have also forgotten why a list of <node> element is used as the argument here rather than simply a list of <uri> element...it seems that there is no important information that could be present other than the URIs of the desired nodes.
>
> Given that we are now in RFC, I believe that we can raise this as a
> comment with a response that lays down what the rules are.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
>
> Paul Harrison wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> my preference would be to have the <nodes> element as required and
>> the <detail> element as optional (in both the specification and
>> WSDL!)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Paul.
>>
>> Paul Harrison
>> ESO Garching
>> www.eso.org
>>
>> On 21.07.2007, at 00:47, Matthew Graham wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just some fine tuning here: detail and nodes are both minOccurs =
>>> 0, maxOccurs = 1 in the WSDL but the implication of the spec is
>>> that they are required elements. Which is correct?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>
>
Received on 2007-07-24Z11:05:11