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

Re: [soapbuilders] WCF Plug-fest endpoints

Expand Messages
  • Steve Loughran
    ... Most SOAP stacks dont validate incoming against the schema, relying on the O/X mapping engine to do the right thing. I normally set up my debug builds of
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 25, 2006
      On 2/24/06, Kogan, Tamara <tkogan@...> wrote:

      > It raises another question. Why didn't the server send a fault message
      > if it received a malformed message?
      > Tamara


      Most SOAP stacks dont validate incoming against the schema, relying on
      the O/X mapping engine to do the right thing. I normally set up my
      debug builds of an application to check both incoming and outgoing
      data against the schema, because its saves recriminations later, and
      because I prefer correct over fast.

      Perhaps if we used a type language for XML that was faster to validate
      than XSD, running with validation turned on would be the rule, rather
      than the exception.
      -steve
    • Paul Downey
      ... sounds like a good plan, though I m personally open to ideas for more lax validation such as Henry Thompson s Validate Twice idea to ignore unknowns
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 6, 2006
        On 25 Feb 2006, at 22:50, Steve Loughran wrote:
        >
        > Most SOAP stacks dont validate incoming against the schema, relying on
        > the O/X mapping engine to do the right thing. I normally set up my
        > debug builds of an application to check both incoming and outgoing
        > data against the schema, because its saves recriminations later, and
        > because I prefer correct over fast.

        sounds like a good plan, though I'm personally open to ideas for more
        lax validation such as Henry Thompson's "Validate Twice" idea to
        ignore unknowns using the PSVI.

        >
        > Perhaps if we used a type language for XML that was faster to validate
        > than XSD, running with validation turned on would be the rule, rather
        > than the exception.

        That seems to be the main reason why people throw away their schema
        processor after baking it into code.

        For my money, there is room for some serious innovation around XML
        Schema
        - I'd love to describe my messages as a bunch of absolute XPaths and
        build mappers and parsers based upon that, generating XML Schema for
        those who really need such a thing.

        Paul
        --
        http://blog.whatfettle.com
      • noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        ... You may be interested to know that my group has had a paper on high performance XML Schema validation accepted at the upcoming WWW 2006 conference. The
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 6, 2006
          Paul Downey wrote:

          > On 25 Feb 2006, at 22:50, Steve Loughran wrote:

          > >
          > > Perhaps if we used a type language for XML that was faster to validate
          > > than XSD, running with validation turned on would be the rule, rather
          > > than the exception.
          >
          > That seems to be the main reason why people throw away their schema
          > processor after baking it into code.

          You may be interested to know that my group has had a paper on high
          performance XML Schema validation accepted at the upcoming WWW 2006
          conference. The results suggest that schema validation can be done much
          more efficiently than is typically assumed. The conference is at the end
          of May in Edinburgh, and all papers will be posted by the conference
          organizers on the web, presumably around the time of the conference. One
          of our goals was indeed to prove that Schema validation could be deployed
          in production systems, or at least that performance need not be the
          impediment to doing so. If you're interested, look for the paper, or
          better yet come to the conference.

          (Note: the system described in the paper is a Research prototype; nothing
          should be inferred from this note or from the paper as to what IBM will or
          won't offer in its products.)

          Noah

          --------------------------------------
          Noah Mendelsohn
          IBM Corporation
          One Rogers Street
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          1-617-693-4036
          --------------------------------------








          Paul Downey <paul.downey@...>
          Sent by: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
          03/06/2006 06:44 AM
          Please respond to soapbuilders

          To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
          cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
          Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] WCF Plug-fest endpoints



          On 25 Feb 2006, at 22:50, Steve Loughran wrote:
          >
          > Most SOAP stacks dont validate incoming against the schema, relying on
          > the O/X mapping engine to do the right thing. I normally set up my
          > debug builds of an application to check both incoming and outgoing
          > data against the schema, because its saves recriminations later, and
          > because I prefer correct over fast.

          sounds like a good plan, though I'm personally open to ideas for more
          lax validation such as Henry Thompson's "Validate Twice" idea to
          ignore unknowns using the PSVI.

          >
          > Perhaps if we used a type language for XML that was faster to validate
          > than XSD, running with validation turned on would be the rule, rather
          > than the exception.

          That seems to be the main reason why people throw away their schema
          processor after baking it into code.

          For my money, there is room for some serious innovation around XML
          Schema
          - I'd love to describe my messages as a bunch of absolute XPaths and
          build mappers and parsers based upon that, generating XML Schema for
          those who really need such a thing.

          Paul
          --
          http://blog.whatfettle.com



          -----------------------------------------------------------------
          This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
          implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
          Yahoo! Groups Links
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.