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


Expand Messages
  • Glen Daniels
    Apr 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Well 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
      this in
      Apache SOAP is to follow the "be liberal in what you receive" maxim. We
      have an
      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.

    • Show all 13 messages in this topic