Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

752Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    Mar 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Sam, thanks for the thoughtful message.

      First, understand that while I have *some* experience with this kind of
      work, I'm making it up as I go along. This process works, if we are
      flexible, all of us, and have a shared goal. When we started the BDG there
      was a huge sense of urgency. To me SOAP flickers in and out of reality.
      Every six months or so it seems like it has a chance to coalesce. I decided
      that it was worth two days of full-out effort to try to get on top of it,
      and say as clearly as possible, while people were listening, what we want to
      do right now. Now that people are clearly in the loop, the hour-to-hour
      urgency is past. I want to use the weekend to reflect and think and process,
      so next week is as productive as the last week was.

      I have a few holes to dig myself! ;->

      Dave



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@...>
      To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 8:11 AM
      Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues


      > Dave Winer wrote:
      > >
      > > My motive in wanting to do the BDG is to "get on with it." Right now my
      > > whole development team is sucked into SOAP interop. This has to change.
      > We
      > > have customers who are waiting for us, and lives to live independent of
      > this
      > > process. It must reach closure. Just before I posted the link to BDG,
      > Tony
      > > had posted a message basically giving up. Clearly BDG was needed,
      perhaps
      > > not by Microsoft or Ken MacLeod, but *we* needed it, and this is an open
      > > process, and we have worked really hard to make it conform, yet the
      > flames
      > > continue.
      >
      > Just an overall comment on the process: an essentially unannounced 48 (or
      > 72) hour window with the expectation to reach closure is not entirely fair
      > for those of us with preexisting "customers waiting for us, and lives to
      > live independent of this process"...
      >
      > That being said, I am *VERY* pleased with the progress that is occurring
      > towards interop - whether the BDG was the catalyst, the end-point, or the
      > timing was entirely coincidental (my leanings are towards the first of the
      > three possibilities, but in the long run and if this is truly an egoless
      > environment, it matters not).
      >
      > Examples of positive outcome: the identification of the misspelling of
      > "infinity" by Apache's Soap implementation. Despite the spec being clear,
      > we got it wrong. However, this could have gone undetected for a long
      > period of time as the Apache client and server implementations were
      > compatibly incorrect.
      >
      > More troublesome is the thoughts of a subset. An example of which is that
      > it appears that the current implementation of Frontier does not support
      > exponential notation in floating point numbers. I see no issue with
      > Frontier never producing numbers with such notation, but it becomes
      > problematic if such numbers can not be consumed by this implementation. I
      > pick on this item, not because of any ill will towards Frontier, but as a
      > concrete and specific example of the dangers of subsetting the SOAP 1.1
      > specification. And even if the specific problem is addressed, the general
      > problem remains.
      >
      > Less troublesome is the thought of extensions. For example, if a popular
      > new encoding arises with widespread support, then we all benefit. I
      > personally would prefer if such extensions were documented separately and
      > clearly marked as optional. It would also have been my preference to
      first
      > establish a basis of interop before discussing extensions, but if the
      > consensus is that doing both together helps speed up the process, then I
      > will not object.
      >
      > <political>
      > Insert obvious reference to the dangers of subsetting, embracing, and
      > extending; in the name of "get[ting] on with it". The dangers are the
      > same whether you think of yourself as wearing a white had or a black
      > hat.
      > </political>
      >
      > Meanwhile, back to my life independent of this process. It seems my wife
      > wants me to dig a hole in the backyard for her...
      >
      > - Sam Ruby
      >
      > P.S. Next week is actually worse for me personally.
      > http://apachecon.com/2001/US/
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic