Re: [soapbuilders] SOAP w/ Attachments Interop tests ?
- Hi Simon,
Do you have any ideas about the format if the testing? Would the
emphasis be on doc/literal, or would other possibilities be included
(like rpc/encoded, with XML passed in a method parameter... how
about echoXML()?!). Would you want to allow every possible way of
formulating the reference URI's (absolute, relative, different methods
of base URI determination, etc.)?
If something solidifies, I could take a stab at composing the WSDL
> There seems to be a growing number of toolkits that support SwA, it
> seems like now would be a good time to setup some SwA interop tests.
> Thoughts ?
> 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:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- Somewhat related to this, Direct Internet Message Encapsulation (DIME)
is now available as an IETF Internet Draft . Please send any comments
to the public mailing list . Archives are available at .
Direct Internet Message Encapsulation (DIME) is a lightweight,
binary message format that can be used to encapsulate one or more
application-defined payloads of arbitrary type and size into a
single message construct. Each payload is described by a type, a
length, and an optional identifier. Both URIs and MIME media type
constructs are supported as type identifiers. The payload length is
an integer indicating the number of octets of the payload. The
optional payload identifier is a URI enabling cross-referencing
between payloads. DIME payloads may include nested DIME messages or
chains of linked chunks of unknown length at the time the data is
generated. DIME is strictly a message format, provides no concept
of a connection or of a logical circuit, and does not address head-
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
>> We selected option a, as we understand there are significant interop
>> issues with SwA (at least for the time being).
>Seems sensible. I think the interop issues are "not part of general
>interop testing yet". It might all just work without anything needing
>to be changed, you know. :)