[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Null values and WSDL2RPG and HTTPAPI?
Charles,
Actually setting the .value and .isNull fields is quite the same as it
is with NULL capable fields in RPG, isn't it:
a) setting .value whereas .isNull is left unchanged to its default
fooBaa.value = 'John Doe';
in RPG:
fooBaa = 'John Doe';
b) setting the NULL indicator whereas .value is left unchanged to its
default
fooBaa.isNull = *ON;
in RPG:
%nullind(fooBaa) = *ON;
> What if we defined a "handle" or pointer that could be passed
between
> the user procedures' and into the Getters/Setters?
>
> Probably would need a New() procedure that returns the
> handle/pointer....but you might even be able to offer a New() that
> takes individual *OMMITable parameters.
It was great if you could provide a real life sample. Perhaps you
could generate a stub module and enrich it with your ideas of a
"handle" or a whatever_new() procedure. If you do not have access to a
simple web service I could gladly create it and send you a
step-by-step description of how to set up a Tomcat on your local PC.
Setting up a Tomcat and deploying a web service to Axis2 is quite
simple.
It is a pitty that we do not know whether IBM plans to add true NULL
capable fields to RPG or not. All we are talking about is how to get
around the restrictions of RPG.
@Scott: Please feel free to let us know if you want us to continue
that discussion offline (private e-mail).
Thomas.
ftpapi-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx schrieb am 05.01.2011 21:34:13:
> Von: charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx
> An: ftpapi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Datum: 05.01.2011 21:52
> Betreff: Re: Null values and WSDL2RPG and HTTPAPI?
> Gesendet von: ftpapi-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Thomas,
>
> Sure I can see that need...
>
> At the same time, I see developers complaining about having to set
the
> .value and .isNull subfields....just seems like an implementation
> detail worth hiding...if for no other reason than the fact that one
> day RPG may get true NULL support....
>
> What if we defined a "handle" or pointer that could be passed
between
> the user procedures' and into the Getters/Setters?
>
> Probably would need a New() procedure that returns the
> handle/pointer....but you might even be able to offer a New() that
> takes individual *OMMITable parameters.
>
> Just some thoughts...
> Charles
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Raddatz
> <thomas.raddatz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Charles,
> >
> > I greatly appreciate your feedback because you had some good
ideas. To be
> > honest I do not tend to go with that special "setter" procedures
because
> > people may want to pass the request or response message between
their
> > procedures. Obviously that would be impossible with a stub
internal data
> > structure.
> >
> > But I like your "t_Int4_Nullable" idea. Today I generate the
following code
> > for an array element like this:
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> This is the FTPAPI mailing list. To unsubscribe, please go to:
> [1]http://www.scottklement.com/mailman/listinfo/ftpapi
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
--
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the
intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or
reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a
criminal
offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to
the sender.
References
1. http://www.scottklement.com/mailman/listinfo/ftpapi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the FTPAPI mailing list. To unsubscribe, please go to:
http://www.scottklement.com/mailman/listinfo/ftpapi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------