Fw: Apache/MS Interop Meeting
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
To: <axis-dev@...>; <soap-dev@...>;
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 8:52 PM
Subject: Apache/MS Interop Meeting
> soap/axis folks,
> Here's a summary of the Apache/MS Interop meeting from last
> week. Please take note of the "consortium" for those of you
> who'd like to be involved.
> Summary of Apache/Microsoft Interoperability Meeting
> March 12-14, 2001
> >From Apache: Glen Daniels, Jim Stearns, Doug Davis
> >From MS: (main contacts) Keith Ballinger, Andrew Layman, Eric Andrae
> Most of the 3 days were spent testing Apache SOAP v2.1 and Axis against
> the 5 different versions of SOAP MS has (one being an IE client).
> Since Axis doesn't have serialization support yet (just Strings) it
> was limited in what it could do, but for those simple tests that
> did NOOPs or tested Strings it did ok as a client and a server (just
> a few minor tweaks were needed).
> Apache SOAP v2.1 did much better. There were a few bugs (and holes)
> that were discovered but Glen was able to track them down and, I think,
> fix all of them. He's in the process of trying to see if the
> fixes can be integrated back into the cvs tree, but is unsure about
> one of the fix's impact on the MIME support - but we'll see.
> MS has 5 different versions of SOAP and they've been doing some of
> their own interoperability testing internally so I think they were
> able to flush out most(all) of their differences before we got there.
> However, we did manage to find a bug (or two?) in their code 8-)
> but overall they had things pretty well covered.
> For better or worse, MS is very WSDL dependent. If the industry is
> headed down the path of basically requiring WSDL then Apache might
> need to do so as well.
> We had two strategy meetings in which we discussed how to improve
> interoperability testing/conformance in the future, not just between
> Apache and MS but everyone. We decided to set-up a consortium in
> which different SOAP implementations can join and test their version
> of SOAP against the others in the group. The main purpose of the
> group would be to focus attention on interoperability issues and not
> necessarily prove conformance to the SOAP spec. While we will have
> testcases that we "believe" test some aspects of conformance we can
> not be the defining authority on who is, or is not, spec compliant.
> All we can do is pretty much help people say that their SOAP code
> can, or can not, play nicely with others in the group. That being
> said, there are some definite MUSTs and MUST NOTs in the spec and
> we will have some tests that test those so we'll be walking a fine
> We will also group tests based on sections of the SOAP spec. Not
> everyone will want to implement all sections of the spec but will
> still want to test conformance based on what they have implemented.
> To help this "consortium" we're going to set-up a web site
> (Jim has already reserved wsinterop.org and soapinterop.org) where
> people can post their testcases and test results. We also talked about
> having pointers to "live" servers that people can hit to test their
> SOAP implementations. It wasn't decided how Apache will work this.
> We need to get someone to volunteer to set this up/host it.
> Along the lines of getting interoperability, we discussed showcasing
> how nicely we're all playing together. 8-) In particular we
> discussed having a live demo at a conference (maybe NetWorld Interop
> in May) where people can hook up their machines in our network of
> computers and join in "the game". "The game" will consist of a fairly
> simple maze type of game - each server will own a certain number of
> rooms and clients will be able to walk from room to room examining,
> and placing, objects in each one. We'll define a set of base SOAP
> interfaces that people will need to implement and if they do then
> they should be able hook-in their server and extend the maze.
> Glen is working on the write-up of the overall idea and will
> distribute it once it's done. In order to help things along we
> agreed to try to have another F2F around the end of April where we
> will all get together in a room to hash-out the details of the
> game/interfaces and to actually code it up. I (Dug) have agreed to
> see if IBM will host it in Raleigh. Glen is going to see if
> Allaire (aka Macromedia) will be willing to work on the GUI that
> the main-server will use to display the status of the game.