Re: [Soaplite-devel] Why does value slot of SOM object not include attribute data?

[Jason S. <jas...@gm...>]

Hey All,

Is there any feedback on this?

I would like to clean up the deserialize(), decode(), decode_object(),
decode_value() maze - but I don't understand the implications of how
these subs are inter-connected.

My reading of the code is that the information that is stored in the
o_value slot of the SOM object is *useless* - the attribute
information has been discarded. Since the deserializer has already
parsed this and stored it all in the _content element of the SOM
object - why is this being re-parsed?

Cheers, jas.

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Jason Stewart
<jas...@gm...> wrote:
> Hey Martin,
>
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Martin Kutter
> <mar...@fe...> wrote:
>> ... then we probably should change the deserializer to fill all
>> appropriate slots: With a XML node containing XML attributes, clearly
>> the attr slot should be filled.
>
> Here is what I find about the deserializer:
> deserialize() first calls decode() and then calls decode_object()
> which calls decode_value()
>
> decode_value() calls decode_object() for each child element.
>
> decode_value() returns the $child_name and the $child_value.
>
> decode_value() does *not* encode the attributes into the $child_value
> in any way. So that is the main issue.
>
> Here is a meta point. I have no idea why decode_object() is ever
> called by deserialize - presumably it sets up some important SOAP
> internal information. But all the XML data is present after the call
> to decode(). The building up of the o_value slot for the SOM object is
> a waste of time as far as I can tell - given that the return value of
> decode() is a perl data structure representation of the XML, why build
> up a second one that is missing data?
>
> I don't think the SOM methods should use the o_value slot, and instead
> should use the complete data structure that is present in the _content
> key of the SOM object.
>
> Given how new I am at the SOAP code, it is very likely I've
> misunderstood something.
>
> Any feedback?
>
> Cheers, jas.
>