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

Re: [soapbuilders] Re: origin of interoperability problems?

Expand Messages
  • Christopher B Ferris
    Bingo! Give that man a ceeegar. Cheers, Christopher Ferris STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com blog:
    Message 1 of 62 , May 9, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Bingo! Give that man a ceeegar.

      Cheers,

      Christopher Ferris
      STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
      email: chrisfer@...
      blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
      phone: +1 508 377 9295

      soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com wrote on 05/09/2005 10:47:11 AM:

      > >I didn't say that it would be hard. Just not practical. The world is
      > >not pure java... there's still a gazillion lines of COBOL running
      > >(even some that I wrote back in the stone ages:-). What's a hashmap
      > >to COBOL?
      >
      > While I also think defining hashmaps compatibly across languages is
      > difficult (does CORBA do it?), I think this discussion is missing the
      > real difficulty of interoperability. It's not that it's hard to pass
      > hash tables from Java to COBOL. It's that it's still hard to pass
      > integers from Java to .NET. Or arrays of structures from Java to Perl.
      >
      > The more I get into trying to build interoperable web services, the
      > more I think the whole XML->native type binding approach is just
      > fundamentally broken. I can't see any theoretical reason it shouldn't
      > work, but the practical outcome is so bad it makes me think something
      > must be wrong with the idea.
      >
      > People say the best way to build interoperable web services is focus
      > on the XML documents. I'm increasingly thinking that's the only way to
      > do things. Alas, what that means in most languages is you treat your
      > SOAP packets like XML documents and slog through them with DOM or the
      > like. I fear that in many languages you're better off without the
      > fancy SOAP/WSDL toolkits entirely.
      >
      > If we're reduced to parsing XML documents, all SOAP+WSDL has
      > accomplished is the soap:Header tag. That's not so exciting.
      >
      >
      > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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.