I'm fine with that approach, Paul.  Don't go adding faults to please
me. :)

It is something I will need to support as I go forward, allowing the
server application code to know that additional parameters were in
place, or allowing some sort of configuration.  As it stands now, the
server app is implemented at the xsl:template level, and doesn't know
about parameters (xsl:params) that didn't match.  I could do
something along the lines of what you have done, matching up the count
() of the parameter node set to the count expected.

Chris

--- In soapbuilders@[...]., Paul Kulchenko <paulclinger@[...]..>  wrote:
>  Hi, Chris!
> 
>  I think that relates to server application rather than to SOAP
>  server. In some of my applications I have check for number of
>  parameters:
> 
>  die "usage .....()\n" if @_ != 2
> 
>  and it'll check for exact number of parameters.
> 
>  you may also check by name, but anyway it's application dependent. I
>  may add these checks to test suite, so it'll fail your request if it
>  makes you to feel better :)). I think SOAP server has nothing to do
>  with it.
> 
>  Best wishes, Paul.
> 
>  --- cdix@[...].. wrote:
>  > I'm running some extra tests against Kafka, and one of the tests
I
>  > tried is sending an extra parameter, basically this request:
>  >
>  > <S:Envelope xmlns:S='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/'
>  > xmlns:SOAP-ENC='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/'
>  > S:encodingStyle='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/'
>  > xmlns:xsd='http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema'
>  > xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance'>
>  >    <S:Body>
>  >       <m:echoInteger xmlns:m='http://soapinterop.org/'>
>  >          <inputInteger xsi:type='xsd:int'>32768</inputInteger>
>  >          <dummyParam xsi:type='xsd:string'>xyz</dummyParam>
>  >       </m:echoInteger>
>  >    </S:Body>
>  > </S:Envelope>
>  >
>  > My stuff works, and I'm trying to decide how I feel about that.
>  > I'm
>  > basically matching up params by name, but I'm not currently
>  > checking
>  > to see if there are extra parameters.
>  >
>  > So, does everyone think this should be a fault?  Or is it
>  > acceptable
>  > to ignore extraneous parameters?  Preliminary tests using Simon's
>  > pocketSOAP interop client (thanks, Simon) show mixed results
among
>  > the toolkits:
>  >
>  > 4S4C:             OK
>  > SOAP::Lite:       OK
>  > SQLData:          Complained
>  > Frontier:         Complained
>  >
>  > I had some trouble reaching any of the others right now, but I'm
>  > guessing we'll continue to get mixed results.
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  > Chris
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>  >
>  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@[...]..
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>  > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>  >
>  >
> 
> 
>  __________________________________________________
>  Do You Yahoo!?
>  Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
>  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text