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

RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    Here s the data I have. On Saturday Keith told me about offlist conference calls re interop plans. I asked that UserLand be included, then I realized this was
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 27 8:58 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's the data I have.
       
      On Saturday Keith told me about offlist conference calls re interop plans.
       
      I asked that UserLand be included, then I realized this was BS, and said that we should have all discussion in public on this mail list. I posted a message saying that.
       
      Since then it's been kind of quiet. I assume that the offlist discussion continues. But there's no reason the onlist discussion should stop even if some people are talking among themselves.
       
      Also even though I resigned as the designated hardass of SOAP 1.1 interop hasn't stopped the private inquiries from coming to my company, and I need to refer them to a public list to discuss, because I do not want to participate in private discussions re SOAP interop.
       
      What a twisty place in time. So let's move forward? Let's create results. If IBM and Microsoft and others want to promote those results that would be fantastic. In the tradition of IBM running ads for Linux.
       
      But the real work is interop, not marketing, I believe this in my core.
       
      I want to do a spec for a simple subset of SOAP and document it with the same kind of short 4-screen spec that documents XML-RPC.
       
       
      I want it to be a marvel of simplicity, I want people to love SOAP the same way they love XML-RPC.
       
      I'm good at writing these specs. Let me do this, I'm good at it.
       
      Paul, Jake, Simon, Tony, Keith, anyone else, tell me what to write.
       
      We can get this done this week.
       
      What do you think?
       
      I'm tired of waiting.
       
      Dave
       
    • Keith Ballinger
      We ve been having email problems (most mine, you will probably get this next week ;-), but Tony and Paul (and a little bit of me) have an RFC for everyone to
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 27 9:25 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        We've been having email problems (most mine, you will probably get this
        next week ;-), but Tony and Paul (and a little bit of me) have an RFC
        for everyone to look at. I think it is critical we get everyone's
        feedback and criticism on it, especially your's Dave.



        Tony, could you post?



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 8:59 AM
        To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity



        Here's the data I have.



        On Saturday Keith told me about offlist conference calls re interop
        plans.



        I asked that UserLand be included, then I realized this was BS, and said
        that we should have all discussion in public on this mail list. I posted
        a message saying that.



        Since then it's been kind of quiet. I assume that the offlist discussion
        continues. But there's no reason the onlist discussion should stop even
        if some people are talking among themselves.



        Also even though I resigned as the designated hardass of SOAP 1.1
        interop hasn't stopped the private inquiries from coming to my company,
        and I need to refer them to a public list to discuss, because I do not
        want to participate in private discussions re SOAP interop.



        What a twisty place in time. So let's move forward? Let's create
        results. If IBM and Microsoft and others want to promote those results
        that would be fantastic. In the tradition of IBM running ads for Linux.



        But the real work is interop, not marketing, I believe this in my core.



        I want to do a spec for a simple subset of SOAP and document it with the
        same kind of short 4-screen spec that documents XML-RPC.



        http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec



        I want it to be a marvel of simplicity, I want people to love SOAP the
        same way they love XML-RPC.



        I'm good at writing these specs. Let me do this, I'm good at it.



        Paul, Jake, Simon, Tony, Keith, anyone else, tell me what to write.



        We can get this done this week.



        What do you think?



        I'm tired of waiting.



        Dave







        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

        Click Here to Find Software Faster
        Click Here to Find Software Faster
        <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=162801.1342033.2934624.1279955/D=egroupmail/S=170
        0701014:N/A=599083/*http:/www.knowledgestorm.com/jump_white.html?c=Yahoo
        &n=eLert_ComputersInternet_CommNetworking_WhiteGridTime&t=ad>


        <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=162801.1342033.2934624.1279955/D=egrou
        pmail/S=1700701014:N/A=599083/rand=224407382>


        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
        <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
      • Bob Cunnings
        Hello, Are the following a given? -- focus on Section 7 RPC envelopes -- focus on a subset of Section 5 encoding -- no headers RC
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 27 9:40 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello,

          Are the following a given?

          -- focus on Section 7 RPC envelopes
          -- focus on a subset of Section 5 encoding
          -- no headers

          RC

          > Here's the data I have.
          >
          > On Saturday Keith told me about offlist conference calls re interop plans.
          >
          > I asked that UserLand be included, then I realized this was BS, and said that we should have all discussion in public on this mail list. I posted a message saying that.
          >
          > Since then it's been kind of quiet. I assume that the offlist discussion continues. But there's no reason the onlist discussion should stop even if some people are talking among themselves.
          >
          > Also even though I resigned as the designated hardass of SOAP 1.1 interop hasn't stopped the private inquiries from coming to my company, and I need to refer them to a public list to discuss, because I do not want to participate in private discussions re SOAP interop.
          >
          > What a twisty place in time. So let's move forward? Let's create results. If IBM and Microsoft and others want to promote those results that would be fantastic. In the tradition of IBM running ads for Linux.
          >
          > But the real work is interop, not marketing, I believe this in my core.
          >
          > I want to do a spec for a simple subset of SOAP and document it with the same kind of short 4-screen spec that documents XML-RPC.
          >
          > http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec
          >
          > I want it to be a marvel of simplicity, I want people to love SOAP the same way they love XML-RPC.
          >
          > I'm good at writing these specs. Let me do this, I'm good at it.
          >
          > Paul, Jake, Simon, Tony, Keith, anyone else, tell me what to write.
          >
          > We can get this done this week.
          >
          > What do you think?
          >
          > I'm tired of waiting.
          >
          > Dave
          >
          >
        • Paul Kulchenko
          Hi, Dave! I like it :). Tony is about to send this information and I think it would be very helpful in a matter of creating set of guidelines (VerySOAP or
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 27 9:46 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi, Dave!

            I like it :). Tony is about to send this information and I think it
            would be very helpful in a matter of creating set of guidelines
            (VerySOAP or SuperSOAP :)). Any implementation that follows these
            guidelines will be understood on other side (it won't guarantee that
            this implementation will understand the reply, because we cannot
            limit other side in behaving according to spec, but I don't see it as
            an issue, even simple regexp search can find <prefix:Fault> element
            and make an assumption about un/success of the call). Seeing MUST and
            MUST NOT from specification, MUST/MUST NOT that Keith sent, and
            couple of others I'd like to see the list of ABSOLUTE MUST and MUST
            NOT, because partly non-interoperop happened, because implementors
            implement specification in different ways. Distant goal is to build
            implementation that fully support spec., but it's way too far and
            even then we'll find that spec is not clear in some aspects and it's
            not full interop. Also we'll find that in some aspects it's based on
            other specs and implementations don't implement THOSE specs fully,
            and in those aspects interop is broken and so on. In my opinion, list
            of absolute MUST/MUSTNOTs can solve this problem, because it'll
            create list of requirements that could be implemented if not during
            the weekend, but at least between releases, and hopefully next
            versions will interop according to those requirement.

            If you can do it, that would be great. I think we all are working in
            this direction and information that Tony will send is the first step
            toward SOAP nirvana thru the interop :).

            Best wishes, Paul.

            --- Dave Winer <dave@...> wrote:
            > Here's the data I have.
            >
            > On Saturday Keith told me about offlist conference calls re interop
            > plans.
            >
            > I asked that UserLand be included, then I realized this was BS, and
            > said that we should have all discussion in public on this mail
            > list. I posted a message saying that.
            >
            > Since then it's been kind of quiet. I assume that the offlist
            > discussion continues. But there's no reason the onlist discussion
            > should stop even if some people are talking among themselves.
            >
            > Also even though I resigned as the designated hardass of SOAP 1.1
            > interop hasn't stopped the private inquiries from coming to my
            > company, and I need to refer them to a public list to discuss,
            > because I do not want to participate in private discussions re SOAP
            > interop.
            >
            > What a twisty place in time. So let's move forward? Let's create
            > results. If IBM and Microsoft and others want to promote those
            > results that would be fantastic. In the tradition of IBM running
            > ads for Linux.
            >
            > But the real work is interop, not marketing, I believe this in my
            > core.
            >
            > I want to do a spec for a simple subset of SOAP and document it
            > with the same kind of short 4-screen spec that documents XML-RPC.
            >
            > http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec
            >
            > I want it to be a marvel of simplicity, I want people to love SOAP
            > the same way they love XML-RPC.
            >
            > I'm good at writing these specs. Let me do this, I'm good at it.
            >
            > Paul, Jake, Simon, Tony, Keith, anyone else, tell me what to write.
            >
            > We can get this done this week.
            >
            > What do you think?
            >
            > I'm tired of waiting.
            >
            > Dave
            >
            >


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
            http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
          • Dave Winer
            Here s a straight response. I wish you guys had done this work on the list. We put all our stuff out in the open. I m going to think twice about that in the
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 27 9:58 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Here's a straight response.

              I wish you guys had done this work on the list.

              We put all our stuff out in the open.

              I'm going to think twice about that in the next go-round.

              Yuck.

              Dave
            • Eric Kidd
              Hello! I m the author of xmlrpc-c, an implementation of XML-RPC for C and C++. So in the big scheme of things, I m nobody important. But I d still like to
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 27 10:01 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello! I'm the author of xmlrpc-c, an implementation of XML-RPC for C and
                C++. So in the big scheme of things, I'm nobody important. But I'd still
                like to support SOAP.

                On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 08:58:31AM -0800, Dave Winer wrote:
                > I want to do a spec for a simple subset of SOAP and document it with the
                > same kind of short 4-screen spec that documents XML-RPC.

                If SOAP 1.1 is simple, short, and beautiful, I'll set aside some time after
                my next contract job to add it to xmlrpc-c.

                Here's what I'd desperately like to see from SOAP:

                * A simple, complete specification. This should contain enough
                information to let me acheive interop over HTTP.

                * No requirement to support WSDL. I shouldn't need to know the
                names of array items when building a message, or anything like that.

                * Very few optional encodings. If there's more than one way to serialize
                a given request, then every SOAP implementation will need to include
                extra code. This leads to a big library footprint (bad on embedded
                systems), lots of interoperability headaches, and lots of extra
                networking code (bad for security).

                * At the risk of sounding like the "hopeless dreamkeeper of intergalactic
                space", I think it would be nice if SOAP messages included complete
                type information. Implicit typing is a headache for those of use
                working in dynamic languages--it forces us to use some kind of IDL,
                which we could otherwise avoid. But this is a minor concern.

                If you want SOAP to be absolutely ubiquitous, it needs to be simple.

                Thank you for your time!

                Cheers,
                Eric

                --
                XML-RPC HOWTO: http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XML-RPC-HOWTO/index.html
                XML-RPC for C and C++: http://xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.net/
              • Simon Fell
                I have some thought that are on somewhat of a different track to everyone else s. A quick read of the xml-rpc spec, reveals that it can handle all the
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 27 10:04 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  I have some thought that are on somewhat of a different track to everyone else's.
                   
                  A quick read of the xml-rpc spec, reveals that it can handle all the situations in the test cases that Tony just proposed. I'm failing to see at this point why I would use soap in this case over xml-rpc. What advantage does it have ?
                   
                  Cheers
                  Simon
                  "Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so" - Ford Prefect
                   
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
                  Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 8:59 AM
                  To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity

                  Here's the data I have.
                   
                  On Saturday Keith told me about offlist conference calls re interop plans.
                   
                  I asked that UserLand be included, then I realized this was BS, and said that we should have all discussion in public on this mail list. I posted a message saying that.
                   
                  Since then it's been kind of quiet. I assume that the offlist discussion continues. But there's no reason the onlist discussion should stop even if some people are talking among themselves.
                   
                  Also even though I resigned as the designated hardass of SOAP 1.1 interop hasn't stopped the private inquiries from coming to my company, and I need to refer them to a public list to discuss, because I do not want to participate in private discussions re SOAP interop.
                   
                  What a twisty place in time. So let's move forward? Let's create results. If IBM and Microsoft and others want to promote those results that would be fantastic. In the tradition of IBM running ads for Linux.
                   
                  But the real work is interop, not marketing, I believe this in my core.
                   
                  I want to do a spec for a simple subset of SOAP and document it with the same kind of short 4-screen spec that documents XML-RPC.
                   
                   
                  I want it to be a marvel of simplicity, I want people to love SOAP the same way they love XML-RPC.
                   
                  I'm good at writing these specs. Let me do this, I'm good at it.
                   
                  Paul, Jake, Simon, Tony, Keith, anyone else, tell me what to write.
                   
                  We can get this done this week.
                   
                  What do you think?
                   
                  I'm tired of waiting.
                   
                  Dave
                   


                  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.
                • Tony Hong
                  Dave, This is nothing more than a writeup of the existing interfaces that I ve had up at XMethods for a while now - in fact, these are exactly the interfaces
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 27 10:12 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave,

                    This is nothing more than a writeup of the existing interfaces that I've had
                    up at XMethods for a while now - in fact, these are exactly the interfaces
                    Jake has been using for the interop work he's been doing. It doesn't try
                    and propose a process, etc. There really wasn't that much work done... The
                    suggestion has to enter the discussion _somewhere_.

                    tony


                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
                    > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 9:58 AM
                    > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity
                    >
                    >
                    > Here's a straight response.
                    >
                    > I wish you guys had done this work on the list.
                    >
                    > We put all our stuff out in the open.
                    >
                    > I'm going to think twice about that in the next go-round.
                    >
                    > Yuck.
                    >
                    > Dave
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > 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/
                    >
                  • Tony Hong
                    Hi Simon, Are you asking , why these tests are only focused on these very simple test cases that don t show the full capabilities of soap? Or is this question
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 27 10:15 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Simon,
                       
                      Are you asking , why these tests are only focused on these very simple test cases that don't show the full capabilities of soap?
                       
                      Or is this question the generic SOAP vs XML-RPC discussion?
                       
                      Tony
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Simon Fell [mailto:sfell@...]
                      Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:05 AM
                      To: 'soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com'
                      Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity

                      I have some thought that are on somewhat of a different track to everyone else's.
                       
                      A quick read of the xml-rpc spec, reveals that it can handle all the situations in the test cases that Tony just proposed. I'm failing to see at this point why I would use soap in this case over xml-rpc. What advantage does it have ?
                       
                      Cheers
                      Simon
                      "Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so" - Ford Prefect
                       
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
                      Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 8:59 AM
                      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity

                      Here's the data I have.
                       
                      On Saturday Keith told me about offlist conference calls re interop plans.
                       
                      I asked that UserLand be included, then I realized this was BS, and said that we should have all discussion in public on this mail list. I posted a message saying that.
                       
                      Since then it's been kind of quiet. I assume that the offlist discussion continues. But there's no reason the onlist discussion should stop even if some people are talking among themselves.
                       
                      Also even though I resigned as the designated hardass of SOAP 1.1 interop hasn't stopped the private inquiries from coming to my company, and I need to refer them to a public list to discuss, because I do not want to participate in private discussions re SOAP interop.
                       
                      What a twisty place in time. So let's move forward? Let's create results. If IBM and Microsoft and others want to promote those results that would be fantastic. In the tradition of IBM running ads for Linux.
                       
                      But the real work is interop, not marketing, I believe this in my core.
                       
                      I want to do a spec for a simple subset of SOAP and document it with the same kind of short 4-screen spec that documents XML-RPC.
                       
                       
                      I want it to be a marvel of simplicity, I want people to love SOAP the same way they love XML-RPC.
                       
                      I'm good at writing these specs. Let me do this, I'm good at it.
                       
                      Paul, Jake, Simon, Tony, Keith, anyone else, tell me what to write.
                       
                      We can get this done this week.
                       
                      What do you think?
                       
                      I'm tired of waiting.
                       
                      Dave
                       


                      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.


                      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.
                    • Simon Fell
                      it occurred to me, that (a) we re struggling to get this basic level of inter-op going, (b) what do you gain by having it. (everything you want to do at this
                      Message 10 of 14 , Mar 27 10:24 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        it occurred to me, that (a) we're struggling to get this basic level of inter-op going, (b) what do you gain by having it. (everything you want to do at this level can be done using xm-rpc which is more mature, has more implementations etc). Guess I'm re-asking myself some fundamental questions about soap.
                         
                        Cheers
                        Simon
                         
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Tony Hong [mailto:thong@...]
                        Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:16 AM
                        To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity

                        Hi Simon,
                         
                        Are you asking , why these tests are only focused on these very simple test cases that don't show the full capabilities of soap?
                         
                        Or is this question the generic SOAP vs XML-RPC discussion?
                         
                        Tony
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Simon Fell [mailto:sfell@...]
                        Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:05 AM
                        To: 'soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com'
                        Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity

                        I have some thought that are on somewhat of a different track to everyone else's.
                         
                        A quick read of the xml-rpc spec, reveals that it can handle all the situations in the test cases that Tony just proposed. I'm failing to see at this point why I would use soap in this case over xml-rpc. What advantage does it have ?
                         
                        Cheers
                        Simon
                        "Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so" - Ford Prefect
                         
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
                        Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 8:59 AM
                        To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity

                        Here's the data I have.
                         
                        On Saturday Keith told me about offlist conference calls re interop plans.
                         
                        I asked that UserLand be included, then I realized this was BS, and said that we should have all discussion in public on this mail list. I posted a message saying that.
                         
                        Since then it's been kind of quiet. I assume that the offlist discussion continues. But there's no reason the onlist discussion should stop even if some people are talking among themselves.
                         
                        Also even though I resigned as the designated hardass of SOAP 1.1 interop hasn't stopped the private inquiries from coming to my company, and I need to refer them to a public list to discuss, because I do not want to participate in private discussions re SOAP interop.
                         
                        What a twisty place in time. So let's move forward? Let's create results. If IBM and Microsoft and others want to promote those results that would be fantastic. In the tradition of IBM running ads for Linux.
                         
                        But the real work is interop, not marketing, I believe this in my core.
                         
                        I want to do a spec for a simple subset of SOAP and document it with the same kind of short 4-screen spec that documents XML-RPC.
                         
                         
                        I want it to be a marvel of simplicity, I want people to love SOAP the same way they love XML-RPC.
                         
                        I'm good at writing these specs. Let me do this, I'm good at it.
                         
                        Paul, Jake, Simon, Tony, Keith, anyone else, tell me what to write.
                         
                        We can get this done this week.
                         
                        What do you think?
                         
                        I'm tired of waiting.
                         
                        Dave
                         


                        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.


                        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.


                        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.
                      • Keith Ballinger
                        This should be the first step with SOAP, I hope. There are many other very interesting things you can do with SOAP as well, that we should test for
                        Message 11 of 14 , Mar 27 10:51 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          This should be the first step with SOAP, I hope. There are many other
                          very interesting things you can do with SOAP as well, that we should
                          test for interoperability with once we get all this done, such as

                          * document passing, ie arbitrary XML, not just XML that represents
                          methods and types
                          * using headers to flow transactional and other contextual
                          information across multiple calls
                          * using other transports such as SMTP (not that xml-rpc doesn't
                          allow that), but it seems more common in the SOAP world.





                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Simon Fell [mailto:sfell@...]
                          Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:25 AM
                          To: 'soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com'
                          Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity



                          it occurred to me, that (a) we're struggling to get this basic level of
                          inter-op going, (b) what do you gain by having it. (everything you want
                          to do at this level can be done using xm-rpc which is more mature, has
                          more implementations etc). Guess I'm re-asking myself some fundamental
                          questions about soap.



                          Cheers

                          Simon



                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Tony Hong [mailto:thong@...]
                          Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:16 AM
                          To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity

                          Hi Simon,



                          Are you asking , why these tests are only focused on these very simple
                          test cases that don't show the full capabilities of soap?



                          Or is this question the generic SOAP vs XML-RPC discussion?



                          Tony

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Simon Fell [mailto:sfell@...]
                          Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:05 AM
                          To: 'soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com'
                          Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of
                          simplicity

                          I have some thought that are on somewhat of a different track to
                          everyone else's.



                          A quick read of the xml-rpc spec, reveals that it can handle all
                          the situations in the test cases that Tony just proposed. I'm failing to
                          see at this point why I would use soap in this case over xml-rpc. What
                          advantage does it have ?



                          Cheers

                          Simon

                          www.pocketsoap.com <http://www.pocketsoap.com>

                          "Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so" - Ford Prefect



                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
                          Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 8:59 AM
                          To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity

                          Here's the data I have.



                          On Saturday Keith told me about offlist conference calls re
                          interop plans.



                          I asked that UserLand be included, then I realized this was BS,
                          and said that we should have all discussion in public on this mail list.
                          I posted a message saying that.



                          Since then it's been kind of quiet. I assume that the offlist
                          discussion continues. But there's no reason the onlist discussion should
                          stop even if some people are talking among themselves.



                          Also even though I resigned as the designated hardass of SOAP
                          1.1 interop hasn't stopped the private inquiries from coming to my
                          company, and I need to refer them to a public list to discuss, because I
                          do not want to participate in private discussions re SOAP interop.



                          What a twisty place in time. So let's move forward? Let's create
                          results. If IBM and Microsoft and others want to promote those results
                          that would be fantastic. In the tradition of IBM running ads for Linux.



                          But the real work is interop, not marketing, I believe this in
                          my core.



                          I want to do a spec for a simple subset of SOAP and document it
                          with the same kind of short 4-screen spec that documents XML-RPC.



                          http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec



                          I want it to be a marvel of simplicity, I want people to love
                          SOAP the same way they love XML-RPC.



                          I'm good at writing these specs. Let me do this, I'm good at it.



                          Paul, Jake, Simon, Tony, Keith, anyone else, tell me what to
                          write.



                          We can get this done this week.



                          What do you think?



                          I'm tired of waiting.



                          Dave





                          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 <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


                          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 <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



                          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
                          <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




                          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                          Click Here to Find Software Faster
                          Click Here to Find Software Faster
                          <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=162801.1342033.2934624.1279955/D=egroupmail/S=170
                          0701014:N/A=599082/*http:/www.knowledgestorm.com/jump_white.html?c=Yahoo
                          &n=eLert_ComputersInternet_CommNetworking_WhiteGridOptions&t=ad>


                          <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=162801.1342033.2934624.1279955/D=egrou
                          pmail/S=1700701014:N/A=599082/rand=188207807>


                          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
                          <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                        • Chris Dix
                          Simon, I have to agree. I am still sold on SOAP, but I have come to believe that there is definitely a place for XML-RPC, and that they can get along. I am
                          Message 12 of 14 , Mar 27 10:57 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Simon,

                            I have to agree. I am still sold on SOAP, but I have come to believe
                            that there is definitely a place for XML-RPC, and that they can get
                            along. I am finishing up a big update to my Kafka bits (that sounds
                            vaguely dirty, but its actually my XSLT SOAP framework) that includes
                            support for simple types in XML-RPC. That took about a day to add,
                            compared with several days each for improved SOAP support and WSDL.
                            That's gotta count for something.

                            Chris Dix
                            cdix@...
                            http://www.vbxml.com/soapworkshop/

                            --- In soapbuilders@y..., Simon Fell <sfell@s...> wrote:
                            > it occurred to me, that (a) we're struggling to get this basic
                            level of
                            > inter-op going, (b) what do you gain by having it. (everything you
                            want to
                            > do at this level can be done using xm-rpc which is more mature, has
                            more
                            > implementations etc). Guess I'm re-asking myself some fundamental
                            questions
                            > about soap.
                            >
                            > Cheers
                            > Simon
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: Tony Hong [mailto:thong@x...]
                            > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:16 AM
                            > To: soapbuilders@y...
                            > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity
                            >
                            >
                            > Hi Simon,
                            >
                            > Are you asking , why these tests are only focused on these very
                            simple test
                            > cases that don't show the full capabilities of soap?
                            >
                            > Or is this question the generic SOAP vs XML-RPC discussion?
                            >
                            > Tony
                            >
                          • Dave Winer
                            There was nothing evil or unethical in us working this way After years of working with Microsoft I know this routine. You are overstating my point of view
                            Message 13 of 14 , Mar 27 11:01 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              "There was nothing evil or unethical in us working this way "

                              After years of working with Microsoft I know this routine.

                              You are overstating my point of view so I will go on the defensive.

                              You took one word, "yuck" and turned it into a moral condemnation.

                              Here's my response to that.

                              Yuck yuck. ;->

                              (And been there done that, and I ain't taking the bait.)

                              Dave

                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Keith Ballinger" <keithba@...>
                              To: "Dave Winer" <dave@...>
                              Cc: <thong@...>; "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
                              Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:15 AM
                              Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity


                              I assume by "Yuck" that you feel that 3 guys working over the weekend to
                              come up with a proposed testing set is distasteful, even when we post it
                              as soon as we finish, with lots of begging from people to please tell us
                              where we are right, and where we are wrong. There was nothing evil or
                              unethical in us working this way (I don't know if "yuck" means that as
                              well.) We didn't hide that we were doing it. We just did it. If you
                              don't want to work that way, that is your prerogative, but don't assume
                              that we must all work the way you do. We are not mandating anything. We
                              are not hiding anything. We are simply trying to do the best job we can,
                              and want to see SOAP interop happen. Tony, Paul, and I had no hidden
                              agenda other than what you see before you in that proposal.



                              I'm not posting this response to soapbuilders out of some urge to be
                              closed door and private, but because I believe that those developers on
                              that list want to discuss technical issues surrounding SOAP interop, and
                              not engage in this.



                              I don't think Paul and Tony have done anything wrong. It bothers me when
                              I see you insinuate that they have. Knock me (I'm used to it), but don't
                              knock them. They are working hard and just want to see the right things
                              happen.



                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
                              Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 9:58 AM
                              To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity



                              Here's a straight response.

                              I wish you guys had done this work on the list.

                              We put all our stuff out in the open.

                              I'm going to think twice about that in the next go-round.

                              Yuck.

                              Dave





                              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                              Click Here to Find Software Faster
                              Click Here to Find Software Faster
                              <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=162801.1342033.2934624.1279955/D=egroupmail/S=170
                              0701014:N/A=599082/*http:/www.knowledgestorm.com/jump_white.html?c=Yahoo
                              &n=eLert_ComputersInternet_CommNetworking_WhiteGridOptions&t=ad>


                              <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=162801.1342033.2934624.1279955/D=egrou
                              pmail/S=1700701014:N/A=599082/rand=441646597>


                              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
                              <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                            • keithba@microsoft.com
                              Dave, My apologies if I overstated your views. I tried to indicate that I didn t know for sure what you meant, but in anycase I should havemade that more
                              Message 14 of 14 , Mar 27 11:33 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dave,

                                My apologies if I overstated your views. I tried to indicate that I
                                didn't know for sure what you meant, but in anycase I should havemade
                                that more clear.

                                Thanks,
                                Keith

                                --- In soapbuilders@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
                                > "There was nothing evil or unethical in us working this way "
                                >
                                > After years of working with Microsoft I know this routine.
                                >
                                > You are overstating my point of view so I will go on the defensive.
                                >
                                > You took one word, "yuck" and turned it into a moral condemnation.
                                >
                                > Here's my response to that.
                                >
                                > Yuck yuck. ;->
                                >
                                > (And been there done that, and I ain't taking the bait.)
                                >
                                > Dave
                                >
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: "Keith Ballinger" <keithba@m...>
                                > To: "Dave Winer" <dave@u...>
                                > Cc: <thong@x...>; "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@y...>
                                > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:15 AM
                                > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity
                                >
                                >
                                > I assume by "Yuck" that you feel that 3 guys working over the
                                weekend to
                                > come up with a proposed testing set is distasteful, even when we
                                post it
                                > as soon as we finish, with lots of begging from people to please
                                tell us
                                > where we are right, and where we are wrong. There was nothing evil
                                or
                                > unethical in us working this way (I don't know if "yuck" means that
                                as
                                > well.) We didn't hide that we were doing it. We just did it. If you
                                > don't want to work that way, that is your prerogative, but don't
                                assume
                                > that we must all work the way you do. We are not mandating
                                anything. We
                                > are not hiding anything. We are simply trying to do the best job we
                                can,
                                > and want to see SOAP interop happen. Tony, Paul, and I had no hidden
                                > agenda other than what you see before you in that proposal.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > I'm not posting this response to soapbuilders out of some urge to be
                                > closed door and private, but because I believe that those
                                developers on
                                > that list want to discuss technical issues surrounding SOAP
                                interop, and
                                > not engage in this.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > I don't think Paul and Tony have done anything wrong. It bothers me
                                when
                                > I see you insinuate that they have. Knock me (I'm used to it), but
                                don't
                                > knock them. They are working hard and just want to see the right
                                things
                                > happen.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@u...]
                                > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 9:58 AM
                                > To: soapbuilders@y...
                                > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] RFC: SOAP 1.1 -- A marvel of simplicity
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Here's a straight response.
                                >
                                > I wish you guys had done this work on the list.
                                >
                                > We put all our stuff out in the open.
                                >
                                > I'm going to think twice about that in the next go-round.
                                >
                                > Yuck.
                                >
                                > Dave
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                >
                                > Click Here to Find Software Faster
                                > Click Here to Find Software Faster
                                >
                                <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=162801.1342033.2934624.1279955/D=egroupmail/S=1
                                70
                                > 0701014:N/A=599082/*http:/www.knowledgestorm.com/jump_white.html?
                                c=Yahoo
                                > &n=eLert_ComputersInternet_CommNetworking_WhiteGridOptions&t=ad>
                                >
                                >
                                > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                                M=162801.1342033.2934624.1279955/D=egrou
                                > pmail/S=1700701014:N/A=599082/rand=441646597>
                                >
                                >
                                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                                > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.