Date:         Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:42:51 -0500
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      What should we return?
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

It's true that it would be nicer if the SOAP toolkit picked apart the
response for me.  But, we would lose the extensibility that the thin client
folks want.

These days, I'm inclined to do things both ways.  How about defining two
footprints for our searchRetrieve method in the WSDL?  One footprint does
not have a responseSchema in the request and returns an object of type
SearchResponse.  The other footprint does have a responseSchema in the
request and returns a String.

The WSDL provided by any particular site would specify which, if not both,
of these methods was supported by the site.  So, this should not mandate
implementation of both methods if the developer thinks the overhead is too
great.

How is this for a compromise?  Matthew, could you recraft the WSDL to
support this?

Ralph