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

RE: [soapbuilders] state of the art on interoperability

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Feb 14, 2005

        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 2 of 25 , Feb 14, 2005
        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 3 of 25 , Feb 14, 2005
          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 4 of 25 , Feb 14, 2005
            >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 5 of 25 , Feb 14, 2005
              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 6 of 25 , Feb 14, 2005
                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 7 of 25 , Feb 14, 2005
                  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 8 of 25 , Feb 14, 2005
                    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 9 of 25 , Feb 16, 2005
                      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 10 of 25 , Feb 16, 2005
                        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 11 of 25 , Feb 16, 2005
                          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 12 of 25 , Feb 16, 2005
                            > 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 13 of 25 , Feb 17, 2005
                              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 14 of 25 , Feb 17, 2005
                                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 15 of 25 , Feb 17, 2005
                                  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 16 of 25 , Feb 18, 2005
                                    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 17 of 25 , Feb 18, 2005
                                      > 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 18 of 25 , Feb 18, 2005
                                        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 19 of 25 , Feb 18, 2005
                                          > 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 20 of 25 , Feb 18, 2005
                                            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.