> Instead of:
> <foo>1</foo>
> I would expect
> <parameterName>foo</parameterName>
> <parameterValue>1</parameterValue>
> Is that right?
There's no rules as to how to turn &x-foo=1 into the SRW element form. I
wouldn't simply throw them into <parameterName> as that's unlikely to be
the form that an SRW request would convey them in.
The person who created the foo could of course say that in SRW it's
carried as <parameterName> and <parameterValue>, but that wouldn't be very
sensible (IMHO) as then the two fields need to be somehow linked, and the
soap toolkit may not necessarily have kept them together. Secondly, the
tk might have only kept one of each, if it needed to put them into a data
structure somehow.
Rob
> Assuming that there's a more sensible way to map from x-foo to <foo>
> than just stripping the x-, when I try to implement it, the following
> falls out:
> http://.../l5r?version=1.1&query=bar&x-foo=1
>
> <searchRetrieveResponse>
> <numberOfRecords>0</numberOfRecords>
> <echoedRequest>
> <version>1.1</version>
> <query>bar</query>
> <extraRequestData>
> <foo>1</foo>
> </extraRequestData>
> </echoedRequest>
> <extraResponseData>
> <foo>This is the response data</foo>
> </extraResponseData>
> </searchRetrieveResponse>
--
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I
|