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

Re: [soapbuilders] UserLand's interop endpoint up

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.