- Apr 1 12:26 AMWell hot damn.
Not only did I have a fabulous vacation, but I sync my mail to find
upteen-hundred messages from all of you working together to try and get
interoperability going. Yay, soapbuilders! :) So, I'm currently (~6PM
Pacific time) on the plane
on the way home, and I'll summarize my reactions to what I've gathered of
recent activity here. Apologies if any of this is redundant, I synced very
early this morning.
First, to Dave and Jake - I'm really glad you guys have gotten involved in
effort after the initial somewhat confusing start.
Now that I'll be back, I have to place 1st priority on Macromedia issues
(and Axis development), but in my time around that I am still committed to
this effort, and will try to work on getting an Apache-SOAP endpoint up
Re: null params in the BDG - I haven't seen the latest version, just the
so I just want to make sure it's clear in the text that the "nil" element
is not required - i.e <thisParam xsi:null="1"/> is just as good. A nit, to
sure, but I've seen this sort of thing confuse people before.
Re: schema URIs - this is a rough one. The way we've started to deal with
Apache SOAP is to follow the "be liberal in what you receive" maxim. We
abstraction for the schema types, and we'll accept whatever you throw at us
long as it's consistent (i.e. 1999 schema uses "ur-type", 2000 uses
etc). We'll send whatever you set the "current schema" setting to. I think
this kind of thing is a pretty flexible solution, but I realize this may not
be so easy to implement for all platforms.... I'm not sure if I like the
idea of locking things down at a pre-release level (1999) of the spec, and
yet at the same time, there also may be older implementations that we want
to be compatible with. My gut says to accept them all for a little while,
deprecating 1999 and 2000 in new revisions of implementations.
Oop - that's a start, but gotta go for now, one more message to queue before
touchdown. More tomorrow.
- Next post in topic >>