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

Re: origin of interoperability problems?

Expand Messages
  • ejv02
    ... sends say, ... would ... My point of view was that by doing the WSDL-first approach the service implementation (whatever is java, .net..) cannot take
    Message 1 of 62 , May 7, 2005
      --- In soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com, Rich Salz <rsalz@d...> wrote:
      > > If I am a Java programmer that wants to create a service that
      sends say,
      > > a hashmap, by using WSDL-first I would define somehow a XSD type
      > > (something like a list of key-value pairs), but then the toolkit will
      > > not generate the hashmap type, so I would have to program the hashmap
      > > behaviour myself. Isn't this an inconvenience? As a programmer, I
      would
      > > prefer to use predefined types.
      >
      > Not all languages have hashmaps, and not all hashmaps are the same
      > (e.g., C++ STL vs Java). If you don't care about non-Java languages,
      > then you don't need the interop provided by WSDL-first.
      >
      > But if you don't care about non-Java, why not just use RMI?


      My point of view was that by doing the WSDL-first approach the service
      implementation (whatever is java, .net..) cannot take advantage of the
      language capabilities. This means that you are going to get a map of
      the XSD defined types: arrays, lists, etc, but not a mapping of more
      complex structures like trees (unless you do the parsing yourself
      using DOM as it was said before). But if your language supports graph
      types, IMHO you can't take advantage of that using WSDL-first.

      Regards,

      -Enric





      >
      > /r$
      >
      > --
      > Rich Salz Chief Security Architect
      > DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
      > XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
    • Steve Loughran
      ... 1. .net1.1 time assumes that times are in local tz, so if your service is working w/ GMT zones then you only get interop problems in the GMT locations. 2.
      Message 62 of 62 , Jul 5, 2005
        --- In soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com, Simon Fell <ws@z...> wrote:
        > >I've never personally had a dateTime problem, which in retrospect
        > >surprises me. Our users have a lot of confusion about timezones, but
        > >the interop is actually working the way it is supposed to.
        >
        > Steve Loughran has written a number of times about problems with
        > dateTime, i've never fully understood the issue he talks about,
        > although lots of users get confused over timezones, and whether there
        > toolkit works with UTC or local times (as most platforms DateTime
        > datatype typically doesn't retain TZ info).
        >

        1. .net1.1 time assumes that times are in local tz, so if your service
        is working w/ GMT zones then you only get interop problems in the GMT
        locations.

        2. Axis self tests were failing for me in the GMT0BST tz; nobody else
        could see it. wierd.

        3. I had an axis1.1 client/server where stuff was coming in a hour out
        on 127.0.0.1 based communications.

        Now, this is all in the past. Things may be fixed. Using time_t fixes
        things for me too mostly, though you have other problems there (leap
        seconds, the effect of the moon on the oceans, etc, etc). Try it and
        see. But remember to test not just in different systems, but in boxes
        (or at least virtual boxes) in different zones and locales.

        -steve
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.