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

Re: [soapbuilders] state of the art on interoperability

Expand Messages
  • Darma Muthiayen
    Can t agree more... at least rpc/encoded had the grace of being workable even with .NET, Python, Perl clients, as long as you stick to SOAP-compliant data
    Message 1 of 25 , Feb 13 1:35 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Can't agree more... at least rpc/encoded had the grace of being "workable" even with .NET, Python, Perl clients, as long as you stick to SOAP-compliant data types and avoid custom serializers.  But even ZSI is branching out of rpc/encoded.

      Even among flavors of Axis (Axis 1.1, JBoss.NET, JBossWS, WebSphere 5.0, Axis 1.2RC2), interoperability is not a given.

      In the J2EE world, take a close look at the WSDL's generated by WebLogic and Axis, and notice the differences.  Even JAX-RPC is considered flawed by some.

      My favorite example: an unspecified DateTime from a .NET client translates to this SOAP dateTime value: Jan 1, 0001 00:00:00, and that can create real havoc in time-sensitive systems.

      Many are now swearing by WS-I BP, (some for J2EE certification), but while BP recommends rpc/literal and document/literal, many are advocating wrapped/literal.

      In a word, the disparity in WSDL styles and in their adoption/implementations can cause hell to break loose...

      --Darma

      Nelson Minar wrote:
      >What are the sort of interoperability problems currently happening?

      From my experience nothing interoperates well, even in the basic SOAP
      stack. rpc/encoded used to work OK, within its limitations but now
      that's deprecated it's not a realistic option for new services. So
      you're stuck with document/literal where practice isn't great.

      .NET and Java can mostly interop with document/literal, although there
      are problems there. Perl, Python, and PHP all have significant trouble
      with document/literal services. Honestly, if you're in a hurry in one
      of those languages you're better off working with raw XML. At least
      with doc/lit that's not so bad.

      The situation is much worse if you try to go beyond basic SOAP to any
      of the WS-* stuff.

      >What are the problems that remain open?

      My favourite example these days is how hard it is to send empty
      elements, say for optional integers. You have two choices: don't send
      the element all, or send one with a "nil" attribute to True:
        <myInteger xsi:nil="true"/>
      Axis likes to use the nil attributes. .NET 1.1 doesn't understand
      them. End result? Interop between Axis and .NET is a real pain.

      This is a very clear and simple example. The failures of complex data
      structures in various toolkits is often much more complicated to
      understand.


      -----------------------------------------------------------------
      This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.



    • Kirill Gavrylyuk
      This is an excellent list to report webservices interop problems that cause pain - I d love to hear more. While I won t disagree that software and bugs come
      Message 2 of 25 , Feb 13 3:17 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        This is an excellent list to report webservices interop problems that cause pain - I'd love to hear more.

        While I won't disagree that software and bugs come hand in hand regardless on which platform you work, I would point out that:
        = web services interop between .Net, Java, Perl and other worlds does work in many real-life scenarios whether you are on doc/lit or rpc/encoded.
        = there's a lot of material to get you over some unfortunate humps.

        For example, take a look at MSDN http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/building/interop/
        If you run accross a webservices interop problem that you can't find a solution here or somewhere else, please report it on this list and we'll work to address it.

        My take on the examples mentioned:

        >My favorite example: an unspecified DateTime from a .NET client translates to this SOAP dateTime >value: Jan 1, 0001 00:00:00, and that can create real havoc in time-sensitive systems.
        well if a variable is uninitialized, it's timezone is uninitialized as well:), so I'm not sure what scenario does this affect.

        >You have two choices: don't send
        >the element all, or send one with a "nil" attribute to True:
        <myInteger xsi:nil="true"/>
        >Axis likes to use the nil attributes. .NET 1.1 doesn't understand
        >them. End result? Interop between Axis and .NET is a real pain.
        There is a subtle difference between the two choices: "ommitted" effectively means absense of myInteger field and is a property of the enclosing container; xsi:nil means the myInteger field/parameter exists but it's value is nil (whatever that means).

        FWIW .Net 2.0 will support consuming xsi:nil for value types if you make the type Nullable. xsi:nil on reference types afaik works with 1.1. I'll look at what would be the best workaround for null interop between Axis and .Net on .Net side - I believe we published something somewhere on this topic.

        Axis folks, do we have a guidance on how to make Axis understand ommitted element?

        thanks

        ________________________________

        From: Darma Muthiayen [mailto:darma@...]
        Sent: Sun 2/13/2005 1:35 PM
        To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] state of the art on interoperability


        Can't agree more... at least rpc/encoded had the grace of being "workable" even with .NET, Python, Perl clients, as long as you stick to SOAP-compliant data types and avoid custom serializers. But even ZSI is branching out of rpc/encoded.

        Even among flavors of Axis (Axis 1.1, JBoss.NET, JBossWS, WebSphere 5.0, Axis 1.2RC2), interoperability is not a given.

        In the J2EE world, take a close look at the WSDL's generated by WebLogic and Axis, and notice the differences. Even JAX-RPC is considered flawed by some.

        My favorite example: an unspecified DateTime from a .NET client translates to this SOAP dateTime value: Jan 1, 0001 00:00:00, and that can create real havoc in time-sensitive systems.

        Many are now swearing by WS-I BP, (some for J2EE certification), but while BP recommends rpc/literal and document/literal, many are advocating wrapped/literal.

        In a word, the disparity in WSDL styles and in their adoption/implementations can cause hell to break loose...

        --Darma

        Nelson Minar wrote:


        >What are the sort of interoperability problems currently happening?

        From my experience nothing interoperates well, even in the basic SOAP
        stack. rpc/encoded used to work OK, within its limitations but now
        that's deprecated it's not a realistic option for new services. So
        you're stuck with document/literal where practice isn't great.

        .NET and Java can mostly interop with document/literal, although there
        are problems there. Perl, Python, and PHP all have significant trouble
        with document/literal services. Honestly, if you're in a hurry in one
        of those languages you're better off working with raw XML. At least
        with doc/lit that's not so bad.

        The situation is much worse if you try to go beyond basic SOAP to any
        of the WS-* stuff.

        >What are the problems that remain open?

        My favourite example these days is how hard it is to send empty
        elements, say for optional integers. You have two choices: don't send
        the element all, or send one with a "nil" attribute to True:
        <myInteger xsi:nil="true"/>
        Axis likes to use the nil attributes. .NET 1.1 doesn't understand
        them. End result? Interop between Axis and .NET is a real pain.

        This is a very clear and simple example. The failures of complex data
        structures in various toolkits is often much more complicated to
        understand.


        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.






        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT

        <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129lvsjje/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1705701014:HM/EXP=1108416960/A=2532114/R=2/SIG=12k6khdnj/*http://clk.atdmt.com/NFX/go/yhxxxnfx0020000014nfx/direct/01/&time=1108330560422967>


        ________________________________

        Yahoo! Groups Links


        * To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/

        * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

        * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
      • Michele Leroux Bustamante
        The situation is much worse if you try to go beyond basic SOAP to any of the WS-* stuff. Although you are correct that the emerging standards are truly a
        Message 3 of 25 , Feb 13 3:51 PM
        • 0 Attachment

          The situation is much worse if you try to go beyond basic SOAP to any
          of the WS-* stuff.

          Although you are correct that the emerging standards are truly a challenge to keep up with, I have been very successful with tests between .NET, Axis, WebLogic so far for WS-Security interop, based on the WS-I BSP and OASIS ratified standards. There ARE issues between platforms, but they can generally be overcome today with extensibility of the platform, hooking in to the plumbing. The dream is that we don’t need to “grok” the XML, however for some time to come we need to dig in if we want the interoperability we seek with WS*. The positive note is that it is not that difficult to find the right solution that applies the WS* standard.

           

          Examples:

          * DIME vs. SwA, most J2 platforms support SwA out of the box, but you can add DIME library support; .NET has DIME built-in with WSE 2.0, but you can add SOAP extensions for SwA easy enough

          * WS-Security support is really well done in .NET WSE 2.0, wizards and all, less XML to stare at and WS-Policy driven; BEA has some support and more coming soon, Axis is all plumbing but is actually currently more configurable than BEA

           

          I do work with a group at www.interopwarriors.com. Unfortunately we are so busy preparing for our next interop event in March we have not been good bloggers, but there are some code samples up there, and plenty more to come in the next few months.

           

           


          From: Nelson Minar [mailto:nelson@...]
          Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 12:54 PM
          To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] state of the art on interoperability

           

          >What are the sort of interoperability problems currently happening?

          From my experience nothing interoperates well, even in the basic SOAP
          stack. rpc/encoded used to work OK, within its limitations but now
          that's deprecated it's not a realistic option for new services. So
          you're stuck with document/literal where practice isn't great.

          .NET and Java can mostly interop with document/literal, although there
          are problems there. Perl, Python, and PHP all have significant trouble
          with document/literal services. Honestly, if you're in a hurry in one
          of those languages you're better off working with raw XML. At least
          with doc/lit that's not so bad.

          The situation is much worse if you try to go beyond basic SOAP to any
          of the WS-* stuff.

          >What are the problems that remain open?

          My favourite example these days is how hard it is to send empty
          elements, say for optional integers. You have two choices: don't send
          the element all, or send one with a "nil" attribute to True:
            <myInteger xsi:nil="true"/>
          Axis likes to use the nil attributes. .NET 1.1 doesn't understand
          them. End result? Interop between Axis and .NET is a real pain.

          This is a very clear and simple example. The failures of complex data
          structures in various toolkits is often much more complicated to
          understand.


          -----------------------------------------------------------------
          This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.




        • Doug Davis
          Clearly everyone s mileage may vary but as previous postings have noted interoperability has been achieved beyond the basic SOAP stacks - including
          Message 4 of 25 , Feb 14 10:12 AM
          • 0 Attachment

              Clearly everyone's mileage may vary but as previous postings have
            noted interoperability has been achieved beyond the basic
            SOAP stacks - including interoperability on specs such as WS-RM,
            WS-T/SC, WS-RF, WS-A, WS-C, WS-AT and WS-BA just to name a
            few of my personal favorites.  :-)   Look at:
            http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/offers/WS-Specworkshops/
            for a more extensive list - but even that's not the complete list since
            those are just a few of the ones IBM has participated in, and then
            of course there's the WS-I interop work.
              And to echo other's sentiments, if interop issues do come up don't
            hesitate to bring them to the mailing list (or to the product
            specific owners) - I think its fair to say that we're all interested
            in achieving interoperability.  It should also be noted that there
            are quite a few live endpoints that have been specifically setup to
            help ad-hoc interop testing - allowing people to test w/o having to
            wait for a formal interop event.

            thanks
            -Dug
          • Nelson Minar
            When I talk to people who build web services toolkits I feel like we re in two different worlds. I build web services people use and interop seems really
            Message 5 of 25 , Feb 14 10:27 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              When I talk to people who build web services toolkits I feel like
              we're in two different worlds. I build web services people use and
              interop seems really difficult. But the tool vendors say it's great
              and spin pictures of fancy WS-Needlepoint on top of this wonderful
              basic framework. Maybe we're evaluating different use cases? Or to
              different standards?

              >It should also be noted that there are quite a few live endpoints
              >that have been specifically setup to help ad-hoc interop testing -
              >allowing people to test w/o having to wait for a formal interop
              >event.

              I know about the old soapbuilders rpc/encoded endpoints, but is there
              something for document/literal?
            • Doug Davis
              Well, they re not endpoints to specifically test doc/lit, they focus on a certain WS-* spec, but the app-level messages do use doc/lit. Just as an example, IBM
              Message 6 of 25 , Feb 14 10:49 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Well, they're not endpoints to specifically test doc/lit, they focus on
                a certain WS-* spec, but the app-level messages do use doc/lit.  
                Just as an example, IBM has an endpoint to test WS-RM:
                  http://wsi.alphaworks.ibm.com:8080/wsrm  (for more info)
                We do have others and if there's a specific spec you're interested
                in testing just drop me a note and if we don't have an endpoint up
                I'll see if we can get one (can't guarantee anything but ya never know  :-)
                Others have endpoints too but I'll let them post their URLs.

                As for the WS-Needlepoint - not sure what to say.  In the interop
                events I've been involved in we've never had trouble with the
                doc/lit side of things.  Any issues that came up we're focused on
                the WS-* spec we were testing - and even those ended up being
                minor requests for clarification rather than real interop issues.

                thanks,
                -Doug



                Nelson Minar <nelson@...>

                02/14/2005 01:27 PM

                Please respond to
                soapbuilders

                To
                soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                cc
                Subject
                RE: [soapbuilders] state of the art on interoperability






                When I talk to people who build web services toolkits I feel like
                we're in two different worlds. I build web services people use and
                interop seems really difficult. But the tool vendors say it's great
                and spin pictures of fancy WS-Needlepoint on top of this wonderful
                basic framework. Maybe we're evaluating different use cases? Or to
                different standards?

                >It should also be noted that there are quite a few live endpoints
                >that have been specifically setup to help ad-hoc interop testing -
                >allowing people to test w/o having to wait for a formal interop
                >event.

                I know about the old soapbuilders rpc/encoded endpoints, but is there
                something for document/literal?


                -----------------------------------------------------------------
                This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.
                Yahoo! Groups Links

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/

                <*> 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/





              • Nelson Minar
                ... What are you testing against? The primary problem I have is with Perl, PHP, and Python. These languages are often overlooked by serious systems
                Message 7 of 25 , Feb 14 11:12 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  >As for the WS-Needlepoint - not sure what to say. In the interop
                  >events I've been involved in we've never had trouble with the
                  >doc/lit side of things.

                  What are you testing against?

                  The primary problem I have is with Perl, PHP, and Python. These
                  languages are often overlooked by "serious systems integrators", but
                  they're exactly the right thing for a lot of web service clients. But
                  the libraries available for all three platforms still have serious
                  deficiencies in WSDL support and in document/literal support.
                • Glen Daniels
                  Hi Nelson! ... This will improve over time as those guys start adopting the wrapped pattern, which still provides the RPC-esque model of operation
                  Message 8 of 25 , Feb 14 11:25 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Nelson!

                    > The primary problem I have is with Perl, PHP, and Python. These
                    > languages are often overlooked by "serious systems integrators", but
                    > they're exactly the right thing for a lot of web service clients. But
                    > the libraries available for all three platforms still have serious
                    > deficiencies in WSDL support and in document/literal support.

                    This will improve over time as those guys start adopting the "wrapped" pattern, which still provides the "RPC-esque" model of
                    operation invocation with parameters, but without the SOAP encoding and explicit RPC rules. WSDL 2.0 has codified the "wrapped"
                    pattern into it's "RPC style", which is simply a processing hint that the XML element representing a particular message has been
                    designed in a "language-safe" way (i.e. it's purely a <sequence> of <elements>).

                    That said, I'll take this opportunity once again to declare some wistful sadness that more of the community didn't take issue with
                    WS-I's decision to profile RPC/enc services out of their picture of the world. As I've said before here and elsewhere, the level of
                    interop we achieved during the soapbuilders heyday with RPC/enc was significantly easier to reach, and more inclusive of smaller
                    vendors, than anything we ever did with doc/lit. The RPC encoding is actually very useful if you're sending serialized object
                    graphs and care about referential integrity, or if you're using scripting languages like the ones you mention. Getting rid of it
                    was, IMHO, a little more about FUD and a little less about achieving interop - but here we are.

                    FYI, starting with round 3, the soapbuilders tests did include doc/lit testing, and some of those endpoints are still up:

                    http://www.whitemesa.net/r4/interop4.html
                    http://www.whitemesa.com/r3/interop3.html

                    Best,
                    --Glen
                  • Davanum Srinivas
                    Nelson, Having worn both hats (company i work for has 10 s of products that use Axis)...Coding to Interop test cases is not too difficult. Case in point, WSS4J
                    Message 9 of 25 , Feb 14 11:34 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Nelson,

                      Having worn both hats (company i work for has 10's of products that
                      use Axis)...Coding to Interop test cases is not too difficult. Case in
                      point, WSS4J work was basically driven by what we needed to get us to
                      interop well for UsernameToken profile and X509Token Profile. But
                      somehow the work we did, still was useful beyond the interop and many
                      people are using WSS4J even though we have not had a release yet. You
                      could definitely say that the code being open source helps to a big
                      extent. Problems start cropping up when you go beyond the sliver of
                      interop tests that exists. See http://www.whitemesa.net/ for more
                      interop tests including rpc/lit and doc/lit. Some people try to pass a
                      certain TCK say JAXRPC and say that all's well, but they fall flat in
                      the real world as TCK's don't test everything (example see -
                      http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110660149700004&r=1&w=2). So the only
                      solution that i can see (so far!) is to proactively engage all parties
                      (both vendors and users) and constantly testing/fine-tuning and for
                      users like yourself have to push to make us work harder (which you are
                      doing admirably :)

                      thanks,
                      -- dims


                      On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:27:53 -0800, Nelson Minar <nelson@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > When I talk to people who build web services toolkits I feel like
                      > we're in two different worlds. I build web services people use and
                      > interop seems really difficult. But the tool vendors say it's great
                      > and spin pictures of fancy WS-Needlepoint on top of this wonderful
                      > basic framework. Maybe we're evaluating different use cases? Or to
                      > different standards?
                      >
                      > >It should also be noted that there are quite a few live endpoints
                      > >that have been specifically setup to help ad-hoc interop testing -
                      > >allowing people to test w/o having to wait for a formal interop
                      > >event.
                      >
                      > I know about the old soapbuilders rpc/encoded endpoints, but is there
                      > something for document/literal?
                      >
                      > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                      > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      --
                      Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
                    • Doug Davis
                      With the endpoint we ll test against anyone who wants to test with us. Our endpoint allows implementations to act either as a client or a server (if those are
                      Message 10 of 25 , Feb 14 11:53 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        With the endpoint we'll test against anyone who wants to test with us.
                        Our endpoint allows implementations to act either as a client or a server
                        (if those are the proper terms for the tests).  What the other end is
                        implemented in is up to the other end.  Anyone is welcome to hit the
                        endpoint and if issues are found they manage to find me pretty quickly
                        and we figure out  what's going on.

                        Since my primary language is not one of the ones you mentioned I
                        can't really comment on the ease with which they interop, but as I said
                        in a previous note, and I think I speak for most (if not all of us), that if someone
                        is using one of those languages and they run into a problem trying to
                        interop with an endpoint  they should contact the endpoint owner and I
                        bet a resolution can be found pretty fast.  If the problem is with your specific
                        SOAP stack then you might have to track down the author of that stack.  

                        One of the things that I have run into (in the past) is that when the SOAP
                        stack I was using didn't support a newer feature I almost always found
                        a way to get what I needed by avoiding the "canned" tooling and did a
                        little bit of hand-crafting until the tooling caught up.  Would this approach
                        work for you?

                        -Doug



                        Nelson Minar <nelson@...>

                        02/14/2005 02:12 PM

                        Please respond to
                        soapbuilders

                        To
                        soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                        cc
                        Subject
                        RE: [soapbuilders] state of the art on interoperability






                        >As for the WS-Needlepoint - not sure what to say.  In the interop
                        >events I've been involved in we've never had trouble with the
                        >doc/lit side of things.

                        What are you testing against?

                        The primary problem I have is with Perl, PHP, and Python. These
                        languages are often overlooked by "serious systems integrators", but
                        they're exactly the right thing for a lot of web service clients. But
                        the libraries available for all three platforms still have serious
                        deficiencies in WSDL support and in document/literal support.


                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.
                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                           http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/

                        <*> 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/





                      • Simon Fell
                        ... While toolkits continue to focus on mapping SOAP/XML to language constructs, there will always be interop problems that arise out of impendence mismatch s
                        Message 11 of 25 , Feb 14 12:03 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:25:52 -0500, in ws you wrote:

                          >Hi Nelson!
                          >
                          >> The primary problem I have is with Perl, PHP, and Python. These
                          >> languages are often overlooked by "serious systems integrators", but
                          >> they're exactly the right thing for a lot of web service clients. But
                          >> the libraries available for all three platforms still have serious
                          >> deficiencies in WSDL support and in document/literal support.
                          >
                          >This will improve over time as those guys start adopting the "wrapped" pattern, which still provides the "RPC-esque" model of
                          >operation invocation with parameters, but without the SOAP encoding and explicit RPC rules. WSDL 2.0 has codified the "wrapped"
                          >pattern into it's "RPC style", which is simply a processing hint that the XML element representing a particular message has been
                          >designed in a "language-safe" way (i.e. it's purely a <sequence> of <elements>).

                          While toolkits continue to focus on mapping SOAP/XML to language
                          constructs, there will always be interop problems that arise out of
                          impendence mismatch's between environments/languages.

                          >That said, I'll take this opportunity once again to declare some wistful sadness that more of the community didn't take issue with
                          >WS-I's decision to profile RPC/enc services out of their picture of the world. As I've said before here and elsewhere, the level of
                          >interop we achieved during the soapbuilders heyday with RPC/enc was significantly easier to reach, and more inclusive of smaller
                          >vendors, than anything we ever did with doc/lit. The RPC encoding is actually very useful if you're sending serialized object
                          >graphs and care about referential integrity, or if you're using scripting languages like the ones you mention. Getting rid of it
                          >was, IMHO, a little more about FUD and a little less about achieving interop - but here we are.

                          +1

                          >FYI, starting with round 3, the soapbuilders tests did include doc/lit testing, and some of those endpoints are still up:
                          >
                          >http://www.whitemesa.net/r4/interop4.html
                          >http://www.whitemesa.com/r3/interop3.html
                          >
                          >Best,
                          >--Glen

                          We (soapbuilders) never really got too far on doc/lit interop testing
                          (it just xml it's interopable by default, right?), the tests we did do
                          concentrated on structures. Most of the problems i see today
                          (particularly between java & .NET) revolve around nil's and
                          minOccurs='0'. I've ranted about .NET's messed up support for this in
                          the past
                          http://www.pocketsoap.com/weblog/2004/07/1461.html
                          but pretty much every toolkit out there does it best to mash these 2
                          distinct XML conctructs down into a single NULL in the object side.

                          I think the main reason why folks like Nelson & I see way more
                          problems is because we're building services that are aimed to be used
                          by lots of different people with lots of different tools, whilst the
                          vast majority of web services deployments today are still back office
                          style point to point integrations. That's why MSDN has a bunch of
                          article around "how to get X and Y to play nicely together" and there
                          are no articles around "how do i get my one service/code base to work
                          with 20 different soap stacks all at the same time"

                          Cheers
                          Simon
                        • J C Lawrence
                          On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:35:39 -0800 ... I m fairly new to the SOAP encoding scene. Is there a site which discusses the various formats (rpc/encoded,
                          Message 12 of 25 , Feb 16 2:58 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:35:39 -0800
                            Darma Muthiayen <darma@...> wrote:

                            > Can't agree more... at least rpc/encoded had the grace of being
                            > "workable" even with .NET, Python, Perl clients, as long as you stick
                            > to SOAP-compliant data types and avoid custom serializers. But even
                            > ZSI is branching out of rpc/encoded.

                            I'm fairly new to the SOAP encoding scene. Is there a site which
                            discusses the various formats (rpc/encoded, rpc/literal,
                            wrapped/literal, document/literal etc) in a fairly even handed way?

                            --
                            J C Lawrence
                            ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
                            claw@... He lived as a devil, eh?
                            http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
                          • Darma Muthiayen
                            Which style of WSDL should I use? http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-whichwsdl/
                            Message 13 of 25 , Feb 16 3:37 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Which style of WSDL should I use?
                              http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-whichwsdl/


                              J C Lawrence wrote:
                              On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:35:39 -0800
                              Darma Muthiayen <darma@...> wrote:

                              > Can't agree more... at least rpc/encoded had the grace of being
                              > "workable" even with .NET, Python, Perl clients, as long as you stick
                              > to SOAP-compliant data types and avoid custom serializers.  But even
                              > ZSI is branching out of rpc/encoded.

                              I'm fairly new to the SOAP encoding scene.  Is there a site which
                              discusses the various formats (rpc/encoded, rpc/literal,
                              wrapped/literal, document/literal etc) in a fairly even handed way?

                              --
                              J C Lawrence

                            • Nelson Minar
                              This has been a great discussion, thank you. I m going to be talking about some of these issues in a month at the upcoming Emerging Technology conference,
                              Message 14 of 25 , Feb 16 6:11 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                This has been a great discussion, thank you. I'm going to be talking
                                about some of these issues in a month at the upcoming Emerging
                                Technology conference,
                                <http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/et2005/view/e_sess/5994>

                                If anyone else from SOAPBuilders will be there, I'd be happy to meet up.


                                Simon Fell said:
                                >I think the main reason why folks like Nelson & I see way more
                                >problems is because we're building services that are aimed to be used
                                >by lots of different people with lots of different tools, whilst the
                                >vast majority of web services deployments today are still back office
                                >style point to point integrations.

                                Yes, I think you're right. It's not so hard to do integration when you
                                control both the client and the server. But with something like the
                                Google Web APIs or the Google AdWords API we're publishing a service
                                to the world and saying "here's the WSDL file, go to it". The result
                                is our support team has to learn about every problem in every toolkit.
                                And the debugging is tough, because usually the bug reports come from
                                users who have never heard of an XML schema and have no idea why all
                                they get back is "internal fault" or the like.

                                It's a significant practical problem, and I think it's why you see API
                                products like Salesforce or eBay distributing client side toolkits
                                along with the WSDL files.


                                Doug offered:
                                >With the endpoint we'll test against anyone who wants to test with us.

                                Could you remind me of where to find the endpoint? The Python ZSI guys
                                are just about to do a new release, maybe they could take a swing at it.

                                There's a cultural problem here, too. Are any of the current Python,
                                Perl, or PHP SOAP toolkit developers even on this mailing list? My
                                impression is SOAPbuilders is mostly done and current interop work has
                                moved to WS-I, but I don't see a lot of open source hackery happening
                                in the WS-I world.

                                >One of the things that I have run into (in the past) is that when the
                                >SOAP stack I was using didn't support a newer feature I almost always
                                >found a way to get what I needed by avoiding the "canned" tooling and
                                >did a little bit of hand-crafting until the tooling caught up. Would
                                >this approach work for you?

                                That's what I do for myself, but it's a lot to ask of users to
                                customize their SOAP toolkits. If you have to go that far, it's
                                probably easier just to skip the SOAP toolkit entirely and fill in an
                                XML template. At least with document/literal the XML templates are
                                simple to understand.
                              • Rich Salz
                                ... I m still here, of course, even though my checkins to the Python code are pretty limited. :) You bring up a very interesting point. I wonder how we can
                                Message 15 of 25 , Feb 16 8:58 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > There's a cultural problem here, too. Are any of the current Python,
                                  > Perl, or PHP SOAP toolkit developers even on this mailing list? My
                                  > impression is SOAPbuilders is mostly done and current interop work has
                                  > moved to WS-I, but I don't see a lot of open source hackery happening
                                  > in the WS-I world.

                                  I'm still here, of course, even though my checkins to the Python
                                  code are pretty limited. :)

                                  You bring up a very interesting point. I wonder how we can address it?

                                  I'll start by mentioning this on the list (although the ZSI docs
                                  mention the list in the frontmatter) and see if I can't get more
                                  folks there to join here. On the WSI front, I could suggest that
                                  they/we do more outreach to the open source folks. Perhaps they could host
                                  a mailing list. Note that all the specs and toolkits they release
                                  are free...
                                  /r$
                                  --
                                  Rich Salz Chief Security Architect
                                  DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
                                  XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
                                • Davanum Srinivas
                                  Rich, How about we make language bindings for Python, Perl, PHP on top of Axis C++? Would you be interested in helping with this effort? thanks, dims ... --
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Feb 17 4:55 AM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Rich,

                                    How about we make language bindings for Python, Perl, PHP on top of
                                    Axis C++? Would you be interested in helping with this effort?

                                    thanks,
                                    dims


                                    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:58:09 -0500 (EST), Rich Salz <rsalz@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > There's a cultural problem here, too. Are any of the current Python,
                                    > > Perl, or PHP SOAP toolkit developers even on this mailing list? My
                                    > > impression is SOAPbuilders is mostly done and current interop work has
                                    > > moved to WS-I, but I don't see a lot of open source hackery happening
                                    > > in the WS-I world.
                                    >
                                    > I'm still here, of course, even though my checkins to the Python
                                    > code are pretty limited. :)
                                    >
                                    > You bring up a very interesting point. I wonder how we can address it?
                                    >
                                    > I'll start by mentioning this on the list (although the ZSI docs
                                    > mention the list in the frontmatter) and see if I can't get more
                                    > folks there to join here. On the WSI front, I could suggest that
                                    > they/we do more outreach to the open source folks. Perhaps they could host
                                    > a mailing list. Note that all the specs and toolkits they release
                                    > are free...
                                    > /r$
                                    > --
                                    > Rich Salz Chief Security Architect
                                    > DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
                                    > XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
                                    >
                                    > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                    > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >


                                    --
                                    Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
                                  • Doug Davis
                                    ... Check http://wsi.alphaworks.ibm.com:8080/*** where *** is either wsrf, wsrm, wstx or wspolicy and as I said, if you d like another one for some other ws-*
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Feb 17 5:23 AM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Nelson Minar <nelson@...> wrote on 02/16/2005 09:11:30 PM:

                                      > Doug offered:
                                      > >With the endpoint we'll test against anyone who wants to test
                                      with us.
                                      >
                                      > Could you remind me of where to find the endpoint? The Python ZSI
                                      guys
                                      > are just about to do a new release, maybe they could take a swing
                                      at it.

                                      Check http://wsi.alphaworks.ibm.com:8080/***
                                      where *** is either wsrf, wsrm, wstx or wspolicy
                                      and as I said, if you'd like another one for some other ws-* spec
                                      just let me know and I'll see what I can do.  I should point out
                                      that the wsrm endpoint is a good test of WSA as well since you can
                                      run it w/o rm turned on, and testing the async part of WSA is critical
                                      to a fair number of other specs.

                                      > >One of the things that I have run into (in the past) is that when the
                                      > >SOAP stack I was using didn't support a newer feature I almost
                                      always
                                      > >found a way to get what I needed by avoiding the "canned"
                                      tooling and
                                      > >did a little bit of hand-crafting until the tooling caught up.
                                      Would
                                      > >this approach work for you?
                                      >
                                      > That's what I do for myself, but it's a lot to ask of users to
                                      > customize their SOAP toolkits. If you have to go that far, it's
                                      > probably easier just to skip the SOAP toolkit entirely and fill in
                                      an
                                      > XML template. At least with document/literal the XML templates are
                                      > simple to understand.

                                      I hear ya - I wouldn't go so far as to dump the entire toolkit but I
                                      can definitely understand the inclination to skip it for processing
                                      certain bits of the envelope.

                                      thanks
                                      -Doug
                                    • George Rusev
                                      Hi Doug, I am interested weather you have interoperability endpoint for WS-Security SAML Thank you Georgi Rusev ... __________________________________ Do you
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Feb 17 8:18 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi Doug,

                                        I am interested weather you have interoperability
                                        endpoint for

                                        WS-Security
                                        SAML

                                        Thank you
                                        Georgi Rusev

                                        --- Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

                                        > Nelson Minar <nelson@...> wrote on 02/16/2005
                                        > 09:11:30 PM:
                                        >
                                        > > Doug offered:
                                        > > >With the endpoint we'll test against anyone who
                                        > wants to test with us.
                                        > >
                                        > > Could you remind me of where to find the endpoint?
                                        > The Python ZSI guys
                                        > > are just about to do a new release, maybe they
                                        > could take a swing at it.
                                        >
                                        > Check http://wsi.alphaworks.ibm.com:8080/***
                                        > where *** is either wsrf, wsrm, wstx or wspolicy
                                        > and as I said, if you'd like another one for some
                                        > other ws-* spec
                                        > just let me know and I'll see what I can do. I
                                        > should point out
                                        > that the wsrm endpoint is a good test of WSA as well
                                        > since you can
                                        > run it w/o rm turned on, and testing the async part
                                        > of WSA is critical
                                        > to a fair number of other specs.
                                        >
                                        > > >One of the things that I have run into (in the
                                        > past) is that when the
                                        > > >SOAP stack I was using didn't support a newer
                                        > feature I almost always
                                        > > >found a way to get what I needed by avoiding the
                                        > "canned" tooling and
                                        > > >did a little bit of hand-crafting until the
                                        > tooling caught up. Would
                                        > > >this approach work for you?
                                        > >
                                        > > That's what I do for myself, but it's a lot to ask
                                        > of users to
                                        > > customize their SOAP toolkits. If you have to go
                                        > that far, it's
                                        > > probably easier just to skip the SOAP toolkit
                                        > entirely and fill in an
                                        > > XML template. At least with document/literal the
                                        > XML templates are
                                        > > simple to understand.
                                        >
                                        > I hear ya - I wouldn't go so far as to dump the
                                        > entire toolkit but I
                                        > can definitely understand the inclination to skip it
                                        > for processing
                                        > certain bits of the envelope.
                                        >
                                        > thanks
                                        > -Doug
                                        >




                                        __________________________________
                                        Do you Yahoo!?
                                        Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
                                        http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
                                      • Tomas Bahnik
                                        If you are interested in WSS interop endpoints, Systinet has old 7 interop scenario endpoints still up and running [1]. List of our live interop endpoints and
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Feb 18 1:01 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          If you are interested in WSS interop endpoints, Systinet has old 7 interop
                                          scenario endpoints still up and running [1]. List of our live interop
                                          endpoints and results can be found at [2]

                                          [1] http://soap.systinet.net/ssj/pingservice/PingN (N=1..7)
                                          [2] http://soap.systinet.net/interop/

                                          Tomas


                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: "George Rusev" <george_rusev@...>
                                          To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 5:18 PM
                                          Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] state of the art on interoperability


                                          >
                                          > Hi Doug,
                                          >
                                          > I am interested weather you have interoperability
                                          > endpoint for
                                          >
                                          > WS-Security
                                          > SAML
                                          >
                                          > Thank you
                                          > Georgi Rusev
                                        • Rich Salz
                                          ... I m not in a position to favor Axis over Gnome s LibXML -- you couldn t pay me enough to step into the middle of that one. :) /r$ -- Rich Salz, Chief
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Feb 18 7:41 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            > How about we make language bindings for Python, Perl, PHP on top of
                                            > Axis C++? Would you be interested in helping with this effort?

                                            I'm not in a position to favor Axis over Gnome's LibXML -- you couldn't
                                            pay me enough to step into the middle of that one. :)

                                            /r$
                                            --
                                            Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
                                            DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
                                            XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
                                          • Davanum Srinivas
                                            This one? http://xmlsoft.org/. sorry did not know about them doing latest stuff. Some folks told me that there is not much out there and i was trying to see if
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Feb 18 9:03 AM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              This one? http://xmlsoft.org/. sorry did not know about them doing
                                              latest stuff. Some folks told me that there is not much out there and
                                              i was trying to see if there is any interest. If folks are already
                                              doing WS-I compliance and SOAP1.1/1.2 etc...More power to them :)

                                              -- dims


                                              On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:41:16 -0500, Rich Salz <rsalz@...> wrote:
                                              > > How about we make language bindings for Python, Perl, PHP on top of
                                              > > Axis C++? Would you be interested in helping with this effort?
                                              >
                                              > I'm not in a position to favor Axis over Gnome's LibXML -- you couldn't
                                              > pay me enough to step into the middle of that one. :)
                                              >
                                              > /r$
                                              > --
                                              > Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
                                              > DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
                                              > XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
                                              >


                                              --
                                              Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
                                            • Rich Salz
                                              ... They re not doing any SOAP stuff. But it might be, err, interesting to host AXIS on top of xmlsoft rather than xerces. :) /r$ -- Rich Salz, Chief Security
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Feb 18 9:07 AM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                > This one? http://xmlsoft.org/. sorry did not know about them doing
                                                > latest stuff.

                                                They're not doing any SOAP stuff. But it might be, err, interesting to
                                                host AXIS on top of xmlsoft rather than xerces. :)

                                                /r$

                                                --
                                                Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
                                                DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
                                                XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
                                              • Davanum Srinivas
                                                Axis/C++ does both xerces and expat. so should not be too difficult to add libxml to the mix if folks want it. -- dims ... -- Davanum Srinivas -
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Feb 18 9:14 AM
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Axis/C++ does both xerces and expat. so should not be too difficult to
                                                  add libxml to the mix if folks want it.

                                                  -- dims


                                                  On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:07:41 -0500, Rich Salz <rsalz@...> wrote:
                                                  > > This one? http://xmlsoft.org/. sorry did not know about them doing
                                                  > > latest stuff.
                                                  >
                                                  > They're not doing any SOAP stuff. But it might be, err, interesting to
                                                  > host AXIS on top of xmlsoft rather than xerces. :)
                                                  >
                                                  > /r$
                                                  >
                                                  > --
                                                  > Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
                                                  > DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
                                                  > XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
                                                  >


                                                  --
                                                  Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.