756Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
- Mar 31, 2001On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 11:11:16AM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> <political>I understand your concerns about subsetting. They are totally valid.
> 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
But for some of us, it's either a subset of SOAP or no SOAP at all. Here's
1) SOAP 1.1 is big, and not especially strict.
It allows stacks to encode the same message in many different ways,
some of which are *unbelievably* hard to support in any reasonable
fashion: non-standard encoding styles, lots of omitted information,
exotic collection types, implicit attributes defined in DTDs or
Schemas, and so on.
Frankly, to support every single feature of SOAP correctly and
completely would take nearly forever. If anybody out there thinks
they support *all* of SOAP 1.1, please let me know. I'm almost
certain I can cause your endpoint to refuse some valid SOAP 1.1
2) SOAP explicitly supports the creation of subsets.
"In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate conformance with
the SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with potentially
tighter rules added)."
Realistically speaking, this means that (1) almost all SOAP implementations
will provide some subset of SOAP 1.1 and (2) the standard seems to allow
Therefore, it would seem useful for everyone to support at least one common
subset. I don't especially care what that subset is, but I'd prefer it to
IMHO, SOAP BDG is as good as anything--I could implement a stack in a few
weeks, and fit it into an embedded device or end-user application without
XML-RPC HOWTO: http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XML-RPC-HOWTO/index.html
XML-RPC for C and C++: http://xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.net/
- << Previous post in topic