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

Re: [soapbuilders] UserLand's interop endpoint up

Expand Messages
  • Sam Ruby
    ... Is there any way that you could update it to match the SOAPAction specified by http://www.whitemesa.com/interop.htm, i.e., http://soapinterop.org/ ? -
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 9, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Jake Savin wrote:
      >
      > SOAPAction: urn:soapinterop

      Is there any way that you could update it to match the SOAPAction specified
      by http://www.whitemesa.com/interop.htm, i.e., "http://soapinterop.org/" ?

      - Sam Ruby
    • Dave Winer
      Sam there s a lot of value in leaving our implementation exactly as it was in April, so if you want us to change, you d better have a good argument for it. We
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 9, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Sam there's a lot of value in leaving our implementation exactly as it was
        in April, so if you want us to change, you'd better have a good argument for
        it. We are still working on the product ship we started in May (damn it
        takes a long time!) and up to our eyeballs in work trying to get the product
        out. It'll be really good if we don't have to get on the treadmill to
        maintain the interop, and I think your users will be pleased that your
        software works with ours after we ship! Have a great day, weekend, rest of
        the year, decade, etc. Dave


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@...>
        To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:06 PM
        Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] UserLand's interop endpoint up


        > Jake Savin wrote:
        > >
        > > SOAPAction: urn:soapinterop
        >
        > Is there any way that you could update it to match the SOAPAction
        specified
        > by http://www.whitemesa.com/interop.htm, i.e., "http://soapinterop.org/" ?
        >
        > - Sam Ruby
        >
        >
        > -----------------------------------------------------------------
        > 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/
        >
        >
      • Sam Ruby
        ... I was assuming that the SOAPAction selected was a configuration parameter, not hardcoded in the product. My appologies if I assumed in error. - Sam Ruby
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 9, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Dave Winer wrote:
          >
          > Sam there's a lot of value in leaving our implementation exactly as it was
          > in April, so if you want us to change, you'd better have a good argument for
          > it. We are still working on the product ship we started in May (damn it
          > takes a long time!) and up to our eyeballs in work trying to get the product
          > out. It'll be really good if we don't have to get on the treadmill to
          > maintain the interop, and I think your users will be pleased that your
          > software works with ours after we ship! Have a great day, weekend, rest of
          > the year, decade, etc. Dave

          I was assuming that the SOAPAction selected was a configuration parameter, not hardcoded in the product. My appologies if I assumed in error.

          - Sam Ruby
        • Dave Winer
          OK, Sam -- everything works better if you ask questions instead of making assumptions. Everything I said is true -- and it is also true that our SOAPAction is
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 9, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            OK, Sam -- everything works better if you ask questions instead of making
            assumptions.

            Everything I said is true -- and it is also true that our SOAPAction is
            "configurable," however, I stand by my wish to have my team focus on
            revenue-generating work.

            Thanks and repeated good wishes for much success and happiness!

            Dave


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@...>
            To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:21 PM
            Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] UserLand's interop endpoint up


            > Dave Winer wrote:
            > >
            > > Sam there's a lot of value in leaving our implementation exactly as it
            was
            > > in April, so if you want us to change, you'd better have a good argument
            for
            > > it. We are still working on the product ship we started in May (damn it
            > > takes a long time!) and up to our eyeballs in work trying to get the
            product
            > > out. It'll be really good if we don't have to get on the treadmill to
            > > maintain the interop, and I think your users will be pleased that your
            > > software works with ours after we ship! Have a great day, weekend, rest
            of
            > > the year, decade, etc. Dave
            >
            > I was assuming that the SOAPAction selected was a configuration parameter,
            not hardcoded in the product. My appologies if I assumed in error.
            >
            > - Sam Ruby
            >
            >
            > -----------------------------------------------------------------
            > 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/
            >
            >
          • Rich Salz
            Dave, the problem is that your SOAP1.1 spec requires quotes around the SOAPAction header; see http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383528 It was one of the fixes
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 9, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Dave, the problem is that your SOAP1.1 spec requires quotes around the
              SOAPAction header; see http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383528

              It was one of the fixes made as the interop tests were evolved.
              /r$
              --
              Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
              Encryption)
              http://www.zolera.com
            • Sam Ruby
              ... Sigh. The query was framed in the form of a question. Here s my dillema. When people look for good soap implementations, I ve been telling people to use
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Dave Winer wrote:
                >
                > OK, Sam -- everything works better if you ask questions instead of making
                > assumptions.

                Sigh. The query was framed in the form of a question.

                Here's my dillema. When people look for good soap implementations, I've
                been telling people to use the results of this interop effort to help
                decide which soap implementation best suits their needs. I often also use
                many of the failures I see to demonstrate how humans are falible and simple
                prose descriptions often are not enough - and how important things like
                WSDL are.

                My choices are to leave the Frontier implementation off the Apache pages
                and be accused of exclusionary practices. Or include results which
                probably are not indicative of how well the underlying Fronteir
                implementation actually interoperates, due to what appears to be a simple
                misconfiguration of the tests.

                Please advise.

                - Sam Ruby
              • Dave Winer
                Sam, I have no time to get so entangled with you. If we re breaking the interop we achieved in April, I want to know about it and fix it. If you re breaking
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sam, I have no time to get so entangled with you. If we're breaking the
                  interop we achieved in April, I want to know about it and fix it. If you're
                  breaking it, I suggest you do the same. If possible state the problem
                  clearly, and try not to make any assumptions, and we'll consider it. Thanks.
                  Dave


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@...>
                  To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 3:34 AM
                  Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] UserLand's interop endpoint up


                  > Dave Winer wrote:
                  > >
                  > > OK, Sam -- everything works better if you ask questions instead of
                  making
                  > > assumptions.
                  >
                  > Sigh. The query was framed in the form of a question.
                  >
                  > Here's my dillema. When people look for good soap implementations, I've
                  > been telling people to use the results of this interop effort to help
                  > decide which soap implementation best suits their needs. I often also use
                  > many of the failures I see to demonstrate how humans are falible and
                  simple
                  > prose descriptions often are not enough - and how important things like
                  > WSDL are.
                  >
                  > My choices are to leave the Frontier implementation off the Apache pages
                  > and be accused of exclusionary practices. Or include results which
                  > probably are not indicative of how well the underlying Fronteir
                  > implementation actually interoperates, due to what appears to be a simple
                  > misconfiguration of the tests.
                  >
                  > Please advise.
                  >
                  > - Sam Ruby
                  >
                  >
                  > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                  > 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/
                  >
                  >
                • Rich Salz
                  Let me try. First, what do you mean by interop. Do you mean 1. Will Frontier s SOAP interoperate with others? 2. Will the tests we passed in April still
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Let me try.

                    First, what do you mean by interop. Do you mean
                    1. Will Frontier's SOAP interoperate with others?
                    2. Will the tests we passed in April still work?

                    The answer to #1 is "yes, probably." The answer to #2 is "no, the April
                    tests had at least one bug." In particular, the SOAPAction header
                    defined in April was wrong; the quotes were missing. *The tests were
                    non-compliant.* In addition to that fix, the SOAP community has moved
                    forward, *EXPANDING* the range of what's been tested. The original
                    interop -- driven by your BDG document -- covered a fairly small
                    percentage of SOAP; not surprisingly, it was that part of SOAP that
                    looked like XML-RPC.

                    Not everyone has moved forward; my own ZSI implementation doesn't show
                    up in the second round of tests, e.g.

                    Let's now return to the two questions. #2 is useful only as a proof
                    point for #1. Does Frontier get the basic SOAP encoding rules right?
                    Yes, since until the tests were fixed, Jake was right in there along
                    with everyone else. Is #2 useful on its own? No. Should you take time
                    to edit your dispatch table (IIRC) so that the right SOAPAction header
                    is used and expected? That depends -- do you need the PR of appearing
                    in an arbitrary set of tables, or do you feel comfortable saying "we
                    interoperate." I'd recommend just take down your "Round 1" service.

                    But, having made that claim, what does it mean? It means *for the
                    subset that Frontier supports, we interoperate.* Since you do a subset,
                    every message you send should be understandable by other
                    implementations. But you might not be able to understand every message
                    you receive; I believe Jake did HREF/ID, for example, but am not so sure
                    about sparse (position/offset) arrays. My memory's faulty here.

                    (Of course, I should point out that -- pragmatically, and that's all
                    interop really is, pragmatism -- interop means SOAP 1.1 with the
                    official 2001 definition of XML Schema datatypes.)

                    Is this clear enough?
                    /r$
                    --
                    Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
                    Encryption)
                    http://www.zolera.com
                  • Dave Winer
                    Thanks Rich it is a lot of help, and thanks for taking the time to explain it. Jake is taking most of the day off today, and I have a question posed to him on
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks Rich it is a lot of help, and thanks for taking the time to explain
                      it.

                      Jake is taking most of the day off today, and I have a question posed to him
                      on our workgroup and will await his answer.

                      What we want is to be able to say to developers: "If you download this
                      toolkit you'll be able to connect your text editor or outliner into our CMS
                      through SOAP 1.1."

                      It shouldn't matter if their tool is running on Windows, Mac or Linux, or
                      .Net, Perl, Java, Tcl, AppleScript or..

                      That's where the rubber meets the road for us.

                      The other major issue is breakage. Where there already is interop, we don't
                      want to change things in our implementation that break other
                      implementations. That's why we put so much energy into getting closure on
                      interop in April, so we could move forward in concert with other developers,
                      which we have.

                      Anyway, we'll look at changing the SOAPAction header, and I'll ask Jake to
                      tell me what the breakage issues are, and we'll see what we can do.

                      And the really big question -- is this all you want from us? Or is this the
                      beginning of a slippery slope where I lose Jake on my devteam and have to
                      tell my customers to wait again?

                      Dave


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@...>
                      To: "Dave Winer" <dave@...>
                      Cc: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 9:18 AM
                      Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] UserLand's interop endpoint up


                      > Let me try.
                      >
                      > First, what do you mean by interop. Do you mean
                      > 1. Will Frontier's SOAP interoperate with others?
                      > 2. Will the tests we passed in April still work?
                      >
                      > The answer to #1 is "yes, probably." The answer to #2 is "no, the April
                      > tests had at least one bug." In particular, the SOAPAction header
                      > defined in April was wrong; the quotes were missing. *The tests were
                      > non-compliant.* In addition to that fix, the SOAP community has moved
                      > forward, *EXPANDING* the range of what's been tested. The original
                      > interop -- driven by your BDG document -- covered a fairly small
                      > percentage of SOAP; not surprisingly, it was that part of SOAP that
                      > looked like XML-RPC.
                      >
                      > Not everyone has moved forward; my own ZSI implementation doesn't show
                      > up in the second round of tests, e.g.
                      >
                      > Let's now return to the two questions. #2 is useful only as a proof
                      > point for #1. Does Frontier get the basic SOAP encoding rules right?
                      > Yes, since until the tests were fixed, Jake was right in there along
                      > with everyone else. Is #2 useful on its own? No. Should you take time
                      > to edit your dispatch table (IIRC) so that the right SOAPAction header
                      > is used and expected? That depends -- do you need the PR of appearing
                      > in an arbitrary set of tables, or do you feel comfortable saying "we
                      > interoperate." I'd recommend just take down your "Round 1" service.
                      >
                      > But, having made that claim, what does it mean? It means *for the
                      > subset that Frontier supports, we interoperate.* Since you do a subset,
                      > every message you send should be understandable by other
                      > implementations. But you might not be able to understand every message
                      > you receive; I believe Jake did HREF/ID, for example, but am not so sure
                      > about sparse (position/offset) arrays. My memory's faulty here.
                      >
                      > (Of course, I should point out that -- pragmatically, and that's all
                      > interop really is, pragmatism -- interop means SOAP 1.1 with the
                      > official 2001 definition of XML Schema datatypes.)
                      >
                      > Is this clear enough?
                      > /r$
                      > --
                      > Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
                      > Encryption)
                      > http://www.zolera.com
                    • Rich Salz
                      ... Sluggard. :) ... As I said before, the answer is it depends. Since you do a subset of full SOAP, it s quite possible that some other toolkit will send you
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > Jake is taking most of the day off today

                        Sluggard. :)

                        > What we want is to be able to say to developers: "If you download this
                        > toolkit you'll be able to connect your text editor or outliner into our CMS
                        > through SOAP 1.1."

                        As I said before, the answer is it depends. Since you do a subset of
                        full SOAP, it's quite possible that some other toolkit will send you
                        messages that you can't parse. You can lessen the problem by defining
                        your interface so that the "most obvious" encoding falls into the set
                        that you support; for example, no multi-dimensional arrays. As to how
                        to define those interfaces, that's up to your implementors.

                        But once they're defined, I betcha many folks here would be glad to send
                        you sample packets encoded by their toolkits. Then you could make your
                        own table just like Sam's. :) But if you want that to happen, then you
                        should express your interface in terms of XMLSchema, maybe even WSDL.
                        (Once you have schema, going to WSDL is usually trivial.) Prose
                        descriptions are not helpful here. You're defining an interface, and
                        you need an interface definition language, and XML Schema is,
                        pragmatically speaking, the only XML IDL around right now (ALIDL et al
                        notwithstanding). Yes it's huge and a pain in the ass, but you can
                        probably understand enough of it in a day so that you can write the
                        definitions of your interfaces.

                        > And the really big question -- is this all you want from us? Or is this the
                        > beginning of a slippery slope where I lose Jake on my devteam and have to
                        > tell my customers to wait again?

                        "We" want nothing. :) YOUR customers will want to interop. It's gonna be
                        a set of judgement calls. As you do the "market is a conversation"
                        thang with your users, you will find out what sending-side toolkits are
                        important to them, and you might have to do some more work.

                        You can't remove that fundamental tension: Frontier doesn't implement
                        all of SOAP, and the community is not going to limit itself to the BDG
                        anymore. So, the question you have to ask yourself is, do you feel
                        lucky? Sorry :), I mean, did you implement the RIGHT subset? Probably,
                        and in this note I've tried to show a way that folks here might be able
                        to help you get a more definitive -- no, pragmatic -- answer.

                        /r$
                        --
                        Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
                        Encryption)
                        http://www.zolera.com
                      • Dave Winer
                        Rich -- a very interesting story. Reminds me of The Paper Chase, where the study group fell apart. So Sam has a table of implementations he interops with, are
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Rich -- a very interesting story.

                          Reminds me of The Paper Chase, where the study group fell apart.

                          So Sam has a table of implementations he interops with, are there other
                          tables floating around?

                          Trust me, this was not the initial intent of SOAP. It was supposed to be
                          Simple (hence the first letter in the acronym). Interop was supposed to come
                          quickly and painlessly. I'm sorry it turned out to be so complex.

                          If anyone else has a perspective on what interop means in November 2001, I'm
                          very interested in hearing more.

                          Dave


                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@...>
                          To: "Dave Winer" <dave@...>
                          Cc: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 10:35 AM
                          Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] UserLand's interop endpoint up


                          > > Jake is taking most of the day off today
                          >
                          > Sluggard. :)
                          >
                          > > What we want is to be able to say to developers: "If you download this
                          > > toolkit you'll be able to connect your text editor or outliner into our
                          CMS
                          > > through SOAP 1.1."
                          >
                          > As I said before, the answer is it depends. Since you do a subset of
                          > full SOAP, it's quite possible that some other toolkit will send you
                          > messages that you can't parse. You can lessen the problem by defining
                          > your interface so that the "most obvious" encoding falls into the set
                          > that you support; for example, no multi-dimensional arrays. As to how
                          > to define those interfaces, that's up to your implementors.
                          >
                          > But once they're defined, I betcha many folks here would be glad to send
                          > you sample packets encoded by their toolkits. Then you could make your
                          > own table just like Sam's. :) But if you want that to happen, then you
                          > should express your interface in terms of XMLSchema, maybe even WSDL.
                          > (Once you have schema, going to WSDL is usually trivial.) Prose
                          > descriptions are not helpful here. You're defining an interface, and
                          > you need an interface definition language, and XML Schema is,
                          > pragmatically speaking, the only XML IDL around right now (ALIDL et al
                          > notwithstanding). Yes it's huge and a pain in the ass, but you can
                          > probably understand enough of it in a day so that you can write the
                          > definitions of your interfaces.
                          >
                          > > And the really big question -- is this all you want from us? Or is this
                          the
                          > > beginning of a slippery slope where I lose Jake on my devteam and have
                          to
                          > > tell my customers to wait again?
                          >
                          > "We" want nothing. :) YOUR customers will want to interop. It's gonna be
                          > a set of judgement calls. As you do the "market is a conversation"
                          > thang with your users, you will find out what sending-side toolkits are
                          > important to them, and you might have to do some more work.
                          >
                          > You can't remove that fundamental tension: Frontier doesn't implement
                          > all of SOAP, and the community is not going to limit itself to the BDG
                          > anymore. So, the question you have to ask yourself is, do you feel
                          > lucky? Sorry :), I mean, did you implement the RIGHT subset? Probably,
                          > and in this note I've tried to show a way that folks here might be able
                          > to help you get a more definitive -- no, pragmatic -- answer.
                          >
                          > /r$
                          > --
                          > Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
                          > Encryption)
                          > http://www.zolera.com
                          >
                          >
                          > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                          > 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/
                          >
                          >
                        • Rich Salz
                          You seem to still be slightly misunderstanding me. ... No, YOU FELL BEHIND. You don t implement the whole spec. Don t take it personally, I don t either.
                          Message 12 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            You seem to still be slightly misunderstanding me.

                            > Reminds me of The Paper Chase, where the study group fell apart.

                            No, YOU FELL BEHIND. You don't implement the whole spec. Don't take it
                            personally, I don't either. But don't paint it as anything other than
                            this:
                            Frontier provides a subset of SOAP, and to the best of our knowledge
                            and experience, that subset interoperates with all the major toolkits.

                            > So Sam has a table of implementations he interops with, are there
                            > other tables floating around?

                            My passing reference to Sam's table was a joke. I was trying to say
                            that if you're in such a lather about his table, make your own. Isn't
                            that part of your DIY philosophy? Sigh. At any rate, I'll try to stop
                            making jokes or mark them with a smiley.

                            If A implements SOAP1.1 and B implements SOAP1.1 than we expect A and B
                            to interoperate. Repeat as needed for the other letters of the
                            alphabet. What does "implements SOAP1.1" mean? It means that its
                            behavior is defined by the text in that document, but unfortunately that
                            document has both bugs and ambiguities. So we need a conformance test,
                            a strict algorithmic approach that finds every statement of fact in the
                            spec, and prepares sample inputs and expected outputs for those facts.
                            Then in combination. Whew, that's a lot of work. It rarely happens.

                            So, we settle for pragmatism. We define some test cases that catch the
                            common subset and illuminate particularly dark corners, and we try
                            pairwise testing. Their is no transitive property, because A=B and C=B
                            doesn't imply A=C because B has bugs and ambiguities. In my experience
                            it's always been that way (TCP, HTTP, HTML, NFS; DCE RPC came closest,
                            but only tested the unauthenticated subset).

                            /r$

                            --
                            Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
                            Encryption)
                            http://www.zolera.com
                          • Dave Winer
                            Hey -- I didn t even know Sam had a table until you told me. Further, re YOU FELL BEHIND : 1. In email, all caps is like yelling at someone face to face. I
                            Message 13 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hey -- I didn't even know Sam had a table until you told me.

                              Further, re "YOU FELL BEHIND":

                              1. In email, all caps is like yelling at someone face to face. I don't like
                              being yelled at, so please don't do it unless you think I'm about to walk in
                              front of a bus or something like that.

                              2. From your point of view we fell behind. I want to acknowledge that.

                              3. I have a different point of view.

                              I'm getting back to making software for myself, my team and my customers.

                              Dave


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@...>
                              To: "Dave Winer" <dave@...>
                              Cc: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 11:35 AM
                              Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] UserLand's interop endpoint up


                              > You seem to still be slightly misunderstanding me.
                              >
                              > > Reminds me of The Paper Chase, where the study group fell apart.
                              >
                              > No, YOU FELL BEHIND. You don't implement the whole spec. Don't take it
                              > personally, I don't either. But don't paint it as anything other than
                              > this:
                              > Frontier provides a subset of SOAP, and to the best of our knowledge
                              > and experience, that subset interoperates with all the major toolkits.
                              >
                              > > So Sam has a table of implementations he interops with, are there
                              > > other tables floating around?
                              >
                              > My passing reference to Sam's table was a joke. I was trying to say
                              > that if you're in such a lather about his table, make your own. Isn't
                              > that part of your DIY philosophy? Sigh. At any rate, I'll try to stop
                              > making jokes or mark them with a smiley.
                              >
                              > If A implements SOAP1.1 and B implements SOAP1.1 than we expect A and B
                              > to interoperate. Repeat as needed for the other letters of the
                              > alphabet. What does "implements SOAP1.1" mean? It means that its
                              > behavior is defined by the text in that document, but unfortunately that
                              > document has both bugs and ambiguities. So we need a conformance test,
                              > a strict algorithmic approach that finds every statement of fact in the
                              > spec, and prepares sample inputs and expected outputs for those facts.
                              > Then in combination. Whew, that's a lot of work. It rarely happens.
                              >
                              > So, we settle for pragmatism. We define some test cases that catch the
                              > common subset and illuminate particularly dark corners, and we try
                              > pairwise testing. Their is no transitive property, because A=B and C=B
                              > doesn't imply A=C because B has bugs and ambiguities. In my experience
                              > it's always been that way (TCP, HTTP, HTML, NFS; DCE RPC came closest,
                              > but only tested the unauthenticated subset).
                              >
                              > /r$
                              >
                              > --
                              > Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
                              > Encryption)
                              > http://www.zolera.com
                              >
                              >
                              > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                              > 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/
                              >
                              >
                            • Rich Salz
                              ... No, you mentioned it first, something about some Apache/XML web page Sam maintains that has a list of SOAP implementations. I yelled on purpose.
                              Message 14 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > Hey -- I didn't even know Sam had a table until you told me.

                                No, you mentioned it first, something about some Apache/XML web page Sam
                                maintains that has a list of SOAP implementations.

                                I "yelled" on purpose. Because, after nearly a half-dozen interchanges,
                                you keep saying things like this:
                                > 3. I have a different point of view.

                                Whatever, Dave. I'm not even going to ask what your point of view is --
                                I don't want to know. I tried to be helpful explaining what the state of
                                the world was, how you could improve things for yourself, etc. I hope
                                you found it useful. I'll leave this thread now with one last meme
                                (sic!): Frontier probably interoperates for those parts of the spec you
                                decided to implement.
                                /r$
                                --
                                Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
                                Encryption)
                                http://www.zolera.com
                              • Simon Fell
                                FWIW, i wrote a WSDL description for Manila a while back http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/manila.wsdl Cheers Simon
                                Message 15 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  FWIW, i wrote a WSDL description for Manila a while back
                                  http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/manila.wsdl

                                  Cheers
                                  Simon

                                  On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 13:35:21 -0500, in soap you wrote:

                                  >> Jake is taking most of the day off today
                                  >
                                  >Sluggard. :)
                                  >
                                  >> What we want is to be able to say to developers: "If you download this
                                  >> toolkit you'll be able to connect your text editor or outliner into our CMS
                                  >> through SOAP 1.1."
                                  >
                                  >As I said before, the answer is it depends. Since you do a subset of
                                  >full SOAP, it's quite possible that some other toolkit will send you
                                  >messages that you can't parse. You can lessen the problem by defining
                                  >your interface so that the "most obvious" encoding falls into the set
                                  >that you support; for example, no multi-dimensional arrays. As to how
                                  >to define those interfaces, that's up to your implementors.
                                  >
                                  >But once they're defined, I betcha many folks here would be glad to send
                                  >you sample packets encoded by their toolkits. Then you could make your
                                  >own table just like Sam's. :) But if you want that to happen, then you
                                  >should express your interface in terms of XMLSchema, maybe even WSDL.
                                  >(Once you have schema, going to WSDL is usually trivial.) Prose
                                  >descriptions are not helpful here. You're defining an interface, and
                                  >you need an interface definition language, and XML Schema is,
                                  >pragmatically speaking, the only XML IDL around right now (ALIDL et al
                                  >notwithstanding). Yes it's huge and a pain in the ass, but you can
                                  >probably understand enough of it in a day so that you can write the
                                  >definitions of your interfaces.
                                  >
                                  >> And the really big question -- is this all you want from us? Or is this the
                                  >> beginning of a slippery slope where I lose Jake on my devteam and have to
                                  >> tell my customers to wait again?
                                  >
                                  >"We" want nothing. :) YOUR customers will want to interop. It's gonna be
                                  >a set of judgement calls. As you do the "market is a conversation"
                                  >thang with your users, you will find out what sending-side toolkits are
                                  >important to them, and you might have to do some more work.
                                  >
                                  >You can't remove that fundamental tension: Frontier doesn't implement
                                  >all of SOAP, and the community is not going to limit itself to the BDG
                                  >anymore. So, the question you have to ask yourself is, do you feel
                                  >lucky? Sorry :), I mean, did you implement the RIGHT subset? Probably,
                                  >and in this note I've tried to show a way that folks here might be able
                                  >to help you get a more definitive -- no, pragmatic -- answer.
                                  >
                                  > /r$
                                • Dave Winer
                                  Simon, I added a link to this on the docs page for the Manila interface. http://www.xml-rpc.com/manilaRpcSpec This way no one can miss it. Sorry for not
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Simon, I added a link to this on the docs page for the Manila interface.

                                    http://www.xml-rpc.com/manilaRpcSpec

                                    This way no one can miss it. Sorry for not linking it in sooner.

                                    Dave


                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: "Simon Fell" <soap@...>
                                    To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 12:26 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] UserLand's interop endpoint up


                                    > FWIW, i wrote a WSDL description for Manila a while back
                                    > http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/manila.wsdl
                                    >
                                    > Cheers
                                    > Simon
                                    >
                                    > On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 13:35:21 -0500, in soap you wrote:
                                    >
                                    > >> Jake is taking most of the day off today
                                    > >
                                    > >Sluggard. :)
                                    > >
                                    > >> What we want is to be able to say to developers: "If you download this
                                    > >> toolkit you'll be able to connect your text editor or outliner into our
                                    CMS
                                    > >> through SOAP 1.1."
                                    > >
                                    > >As I said before, the answer is it depends. Since you do a subset of
                                    > >full SOAP, it's quite possible that some other toolkit will send you
                                    > >messages that you can't parse. You can lessen the problem by defining
                                    > >your interface so that the "most obvious" encoding falls into the set
                                    > >that you support; for example, no multi-dimensional arrays. As to how
                                    > >to define those interfaces, that's up to your implementors.
                                    > >
                                    > >But once they're defined, I betcha many folks here would be glad to send
                                    > >you sample packets encoded by their toolkits. Then you could make your
                                    > >own table just like Sam's. :) But if you want that to happen, then you
                                    > >should express your interface in terms of XMLSchema, maybe even WSDL.
                                    > >(Once you have schema, going to WSDL is usually trivial.) Prose
                                    > >descriptions are not helpful here. You're defining an interface, and
                                    > >you need an interface definition language, and XML Schema is,
                                    > >pragmatically speaking, the only XML IDL around right now (ALIDL et al
                                    > >notwithstanding). Yes it's huge and a pain in the ass, but you can
                                    > >probably understand enough of it in a day so that you can write the
                                    > >definitions of your interfaces.
                                    > >
                                    > >> And the really big question -- is this all you want from us? Or is this
                                    the
                                    > >> beginning of a slippery slope where I lose Jake on my devteam and have
                                    to
                                    > >> tell my customers to wait again?
                                    > >
                                    > >"We" want nothing. :) YOUR customers will want to interop. It's gonna be
                                    > >a set of judgement calls. As you do the "market is a conversation"
                                    > >thang with your users, you will find out what sending-side toolkits are
                                    > >important to them, and you might have to do some more work.
                                    > >
                                    > >You can't remove that fundamental tension: Frontier doesn't implement
                                    > >all of SOAP, and the community is not going to limit itself to the BDG
                                    > >anymore. So, the question you have to ask yourself is, do you feel
                                    > >lucky? Sorry :), I mean, did you implement the RIGHT subset? Probably,
                                    > >and in this note I've tried to show a way that folks here might be able
                                    > >to help you get a more definitive -- no, pragmatic -- answer.
                                    > >
                                    > > /r$
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                    > 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/
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Jake Savin
                                    ... Hi Sam, I modified the configuration on the Frontier endpoint so that it now supports both SOAPAction values: SOAPAction: http://soapinterop.org/ -or-
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      on 11/9/01 7:06 PM, Sam Ruby at rubys@... wrote:

                                      > Jake Savin wrote:
                                      >>
                                      >> SOAPAction: urn:soapinterop
                                      >
                                      > Is there any way that you could update it to match the SOAPAction specified
                                      > by http://www.whitemesa.com/interop.htm, i.e., "http://soapinterop.org/" ?
                                      >
                                      > - Sam Ruby

                                      Hi Sam,

                                      I modified the configuration on the Frontier endpoint so that it now
                                      supports both SOAPAction values:

                                      SOAPAction: "http://soapinterop.org/"

                                      -or-

                                      SOAPAction: "urn:soapinterop"

                                      This way clients can test against the Frontier endpoint using the new value,
                                      and clients which still use the older value won't break.

                                      -Jake
                                    • nahi@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp
                                      Hi Jake, ... SOAP4R client - Frontier server test results: 21/49 http://www.jin.gr.jp/~nahi/Ruby/SOAP4R/wiki.cgi?
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi Jake,

                                        > I modified the configuration on the Frontier endpoint so that it now
                                        > supports both SOAPAction values:
                                        >
                                        > SOAPAction: "http://soapinterop.org/"
                                        >
                                        > -or-
                                        >
                                        > SOAPAction: "urn:soapinterop"

                                        SOAP4R client - Frontier server test results: 21/49
                                        http://www.jin.gr.jp/~nahi/Ruby/SOAP4R/wiki.cgi?
                                        cmd=view;name=InteropResults%3A%3ASOAP4R%2F1.3.8-Frontier

                                        Hope this helps,
                                        // NaHi
                                      • Bob Cunnings
                                        Hi Jake, Looks good. The Round 2 endpoint table has been updated. Testing with the WM client discovers that all supported methods in the base group pass
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Nov 10, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hi Jake,

                                          Looks good. The Round 2 endpoint table has been updated. Testing with the WM client discovers that all supported methods in the "base" group pass except echoStructArray, which returns an incorrect arrayType value:

                                          ...<Result SOAP-ENC:arrayType="urn:SOAPStruct[3]" xmlns:urn="http://www.xmethods.com/service" xsi:type="SOAP-ENC:Array">...

                                          The SOAPStruct type name is qualified by the wrong namespace... http://soapinterop.org/xsd is expected [1].

                                          RC

                                          [1] http://www.whitemesa.com/interop/proposal2.html#echoStructArray

                                          > on 11/9/01 7:06 PM, Sam Ruby at rubys@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > Jake Savin wrote:
                                          > >>
                                          > >> SOAPAction: urn:soapinterop
                                          > >
                                          > > Is there any way that you could update it to match the SOAPAction specified
                                          > > by http://www.whitemesa.com/interop.htm, i.e., "http://soapinterop.org/" ?
                                          > >
                                          > > - Sam Ruby
                                          >
                                          > Hi Sam,
                                          >
                                          > I modified the configuration on the Frontier endpoint so that it now
                                          > supports both SOAPAction values:
                                          >
                                          > SOAPAction: "http://soapinterop.org/"
                                          >
                                          > -or-
                                          >
                                          > SOAPAction: "urn:soapinterop"
                                          >
                                          > This way clients can test against the Frontier endpoint using the new value,
                                          > and clients which still use the older value won't break.
                                          >
                                          > -Jake
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          > 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/
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • Sam Ruby
                                          ... Please take a moment to check out http://www.whitemesa.com/interop.htm . It contains three sections. First is a description of the scenarios. In both
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Nov 11, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dave Winer wrote:
                                            >
                                            > So Sam has a table of implementations he interops with, are there other
                                            > tables floating around?

                                            Please take a moment to check out http://www.whitemesa.com/interop.htm .
                                            It contains three sections.

                                            First is a description of the scenarios. In both human readable prose
                                            and in machine readable formats.

                                            Second is a list of active endpoints.

                                            Third is a list of published results.

                                            In addition to these three sections, at the bottom you can find a pointer
                                            to a "competing" registry, a back pointer to the previous effort, and the
                                            e-mail address of the maintainter of this page.

                                            > If anyone else has a perspective on what interop means in November 2001,
                                            I'm
                                            > very interested in hearing more.

                                            I see a community where we all test to a set of base tests, and compare
                                            results. I can tell you that I have made coding decisions based on these
                                            results. The some implementations make heavy use of href's, so the Axis
                                            implemention will accept them, but as not all implementations accept these,
                                            I have chosen to avoid using href's for simple structs and simple arrays,
                                            but in some cases (like arrays of structs) I will make use of them.

                                            Some implementations test some extra edge cases. The Ruby (no relation)
                                            scripting language folks, for example, have added a fair number of extra
                                            tests.

                                            - Sam Ruby
                                          • Sam Ruby
                                            Like WhiteMesa, the Apache implementations have trouble parsing Frontier s response from echoStructArray. Three new data types that have been introduced into
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Nov 11, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Like WhiteMesa, the Apache implementations have trouble parsing Frontier's
                                              response from echoStructArray.

                                              Three new data types that have been introduced into the testing since
                                              April: HexBinary, Decimal, and Binary. I have colleagues in IBM that tell
                                              me that decimal is very important to business and financial types.

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