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

RE: [soapbuilders] IDOX WASP R1 interop problem (1999/2001)

Expand Messages
  • Matt Long
    imo, this is one of several issues that we need to discuss in SD, because it is an interoperability issue NOT a political issue. Perhaps, at this stage there
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 30, 2001
      imo, this is one of several issues that we need to discuss in SD, because it
      is an interoperability issue NOT a political issue. Perhaps, at this stage
      there has been mangling between the distinction.

      -Matt

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Alan Kent [mailto:ajk@...]
      > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 12:27 AM
      > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] IDOX WASP R1 interop problem (1999/2001)
      >
      >
      > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:09:45AM -0500, Matt Long wrote:
      > > I think it doesn't like xsi:type="SOAP-ENC:Array"
      >
      > <m:echoStringArray xmlns:m="http://soapinterop.org/">
      > <inputStringArray
      > xsi:type="SOAP-ENC:Array"
      > SOAP-ENC:arrayType="xsd:string[2]">
      > <item xsi:type="xsd:string">HELLO</item>
      > <item xsi:type="xsd:string">GOODBYE</item>
      > </inputStringArray>
      > </m:echoStringArray>
      >
      > Are you saying that IDOX has a bug or that my packet is malformed?
      > My reading of the spec (which may be wrong) says I am doing the
      > correct thing. Also looking at the HP packets (for example) does
      > the same thing.
      >
      > Could you clarify who is wrong and what the correct behaviour is?
      >
      > Thanks
      > Alan
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > ---------------------~-->
      > Make IT and computer Web sites more customer-friendly
      > Get a $10 AMAZON.COM Gift Certificate
      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/JTW3TC/Id6CAA/ddnFAA/W6uqlB/TM
      > --------------------------------------------------------------
      > -------~->
      >
      > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
      > discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please
      > stay on-topic.
      >
      > 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/
    • Mirek Simek
      Hello Kent, Yes, this is a known bug in the version of WASP 1.0 (the one referenced from www.xmethods.net/ilab). Because Idoox is preparing a new generation of
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 30, 2001
        Hello Kent,
        Yes, this is a known bug in the version of WASP 1.0 (the one
        referenced from www.xmethods.net/ilab).
        Because Idoox is preparing a new generation of soap runtime
        (code-named stardust, beta 1 is currently available for download at
        www.idoox.com), we have decided not to fix this wrong behavior
        in WASP 1.0.
        Link to stardust, which handles correctly both problems stated in this
        thread, will be added in one month.

        Sorry for inconvenience

                            Mirek Simek
        -- 
        
        Mirek Simek
        www.idoox.com
        


        Alan Kent wrote:
        On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:09:45AM -0500, Matt Long wrote:
        > I think it doesn't like xsi:type="SOAP-ENC:Array"

            <m:echoStringArray xmlns:m="http://soapinterop.org/ ">
              <inputStringArray
                    xsi:type="SOAP-ENC:Array"
                    SOAP-ENC:arrayType="xsd:string[2]">
                  <item xsi:type="xsd:string">HELLO</item>
                  <item xsi:type="xsd:string">GOODBYE</item>
              </inputStringArray>
            </m:echoStringArray>

        Are you saying that IDOX has a bug or that my packet is malformed?
        My reading of the spec (which may be wrong) says I am doing the
        correct thing. Also looking at the HP packets (for example) does
        the same thing.

        Could you clarify who is wrong and what the correct behaviour is?

        Thanks
        Alan


        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

        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 .


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