[Soap-Python] Renaming the rpc decorator.

[Chris Austin]

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 <luca.dariz at unife.it> 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          tseaver at palladion.com
> 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
> Soap at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/soap