I'm almost afraid to ask this, but...should we follow the same logic to
define in the Search Capability a top-level element <iterateResponse> of
type spmlsearch:SearchResponseType?
This would once again gives us a request/response element pair (in this
case, for the 'iterate' operation) without defining a new type.
Bohren, Jeffrey wrote:
>Gary's approach seems reasonable to me.
>
>Jeff Bohren
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gary P Cole [mailto:]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 2:33 PM
>To: PSTC
>Subject: [provision] Request/response element pairs.
>
>In today's conference call, Rami suggested that each request element
>should have a corresponding response element for reasons of clarity.
>During the conference call, Jeff Bohren objected that defining a new
>type (e.g., BulkModifyResponseType that extends spml:ResponseType but
>adds nothing) would be overkill.
>
>However, it occurs to me that we could add a new top-level element
>without defining a new type.
>
>For example, in the bulk capability where it declares:
> <element name="bulkDeleteRequest"
>type="spmlbulk:BulkDeleteRequestType" />
>we could add:
> <element name="bulkDeleteResponse" type="spml:ResponseType" />
>
>I believe that this would meet Rami's goals without defining an
>unnecessary type.
>
>Gary
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
