Re: [provision] Issue 17, statusReturns...

[Gary P Cole <Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM>]

How about 'returnResponseContent'?

I don't think 'returnResponse' quite cuts the mustard, since even if we 
return only the ResultCode (or the ResultCode and ErrorCode), we'll 
still return these inside an instance of SpmlResponseType (albeit an 
instance of SpmlResponseType that is otherwise devoid of content).

As I mentioned in a previous reply to you on this issue, the draft 
specification currently uses the term "output" to describe the 
(optional) content of a response. (This helps avoid confusion between 
the highly similar terms "result" and "results", one of which refers to 
an attribute of a response that is an instance of ResultCode and the 
other of which refers to the (optional) content of a response. It gets 
really bad when you're talking about the responses that are inside a 
batchResponse.) If 'returnResponseContent' is okay, I could replace the 
term "output" with something like "content of the response".

Jeff Bohren wrote:

> Issue 17 reads:
>
> 17. Replace "statusReturns" with optional boolean attribute
>
> "returnOutput".
>
> I am OK with changing it to be a boolean attribute, but I am 
> uncomfortable with “returnOutput” as the name. Normally I try not to 
> get hung up on the names of things, but this name bothers me. It uses 
> a term “output” that we never use anywhere else in the XSD or 
> normative text. We need to find name for this that uses the terms 
> already in use elsewhere in the spec.
>
> My suggestion would be “returnResponse”, but I am open to other 
> suggestions.
>
> Jeff Bohren
>
> Product Architect
>
> OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc
>
> Try the industry's only 100% .NET-enabled identity management 
> software. Download your free copy of Universal IdP Standard Edition 
> today. Go to www.opennetwork.com/eval <http://www.opennetwork.com/eval>.
>