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

[Political]: Extending another 24 hours

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    I marked this message as primarily political. Please, if you don t care to know about the politics of this work, don t read this message. ;- In about two
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I marked this message as primarily political. Please, if you don't care to know about the politics of this work, don't read this message. ;->
       
      In about two hours we're scheduled to close discussion on the Busy Developer's Guide, but we're going to push it back another 24 hours to get more buy-in and bug-fixes. The new drop-dead date for pushback is 9AM Saturday Pacific, 25.5 hours from now.
       
      If you're going to implement this subset of SOAP 1.1 please post a note here or send me a private email.
       
      So far I've explicitly asked for support from Python and Microsoft. The offer is open to everyone, of course, by its nature. I wanted to specifically ask for the help of Python because we have a long history of excellent collaboration with Python, and our languages are so close, as are our philosophies. It's a no-brainer.

      I explicitly invited Microsoft because they're The Gorilla in this space, I think I've offered them a sweet deal, a way to enable independent and open source developers to work to make Dot-Net an even greater success than it would be if it were a closed bathtub. Dead developers don't write code, and some of us would rather die that work in a Microsoft environment. (No disrespect to their software, but the price in freedom is too high.)
       
      There's no poison pill here for Microsoft, unless swallowing your pride and letting an independent developer have some influence on his destiny is too high a price for you. This is an acid test for MS. If they can't handle well-thought-out pushback from me, the co-inventor of this technology, you gotta figure they won't take pushback from anyone.
       
      To everyone, if you have questions, comments or suggestions on the BDG, please state them today. Thanks and I look forward to whatever comes next. ;->
      Dave
       
    • Sam Ruby
      Dave, I don t know if you want to count this as signing up or not. You decide. The goal Apache xml-soap project (and it s follow on xml-axis) continues to
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave, I don't know if you want to count this as "signing up" or not. You
        decide.

        The goal Apache xml-soap project (and it's follow on xml-axis) continues to
        be to develop an open and complete implementation of the SOAP 1.1 (and
        W3C's follow-on standard XP).

        A corollary of this statement would be we intend to support any subset
        thereof, including the BDG subset you defined. A caution however - should
        there ever surface a difference between a proported subset and the
        published standard, we will comply with the standard.

        Meanwhile, I do plan to meet face to face with a number of Apache
        developers at ApacheCon next week, and my offer to host a face to face for
        soapbuilders on the 19th and 20th in Raleigh still stands.

        - Sam Ruby
      • Dave Winer
        Sam, after our rough beginning, thank you very much for this respectful and very welcome response. I totally accept this point of view, and am *almost* fully
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Sam, after our rough beginning, thank you very much for this respectful and
          very welcome response.

          I totally accept this point of view, and am *almost* fully satisfied.

          What I'd like to ask is that we compress the time between these two events:

          1. Freezing of the BDG and

          2. Discovery of incompatibilities with the SOAP 1.1 spec.

          I'm a member of the Church of Murphy, and that goes for specs too.

          If all goes as I hope it will, time spent today will be an investment
          towards powerful and inclusive interop in the coming months and years.

          Let's keep rolling.

          Dave

          PS: I've gotten four private committments from developers who plan to
          support the BDG subset. I've thanked each profusely and asked them (even
          begged) to make a public statement.


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@...>
          To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 8:58 AM
          Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24 hours


          > Dave, I don't know if you want to count this as "signing up" or not. You
          > decide.
          >
          > The goal Apache xml-soap project (and it's follow on xml-axis) continues
          to
          > be to develop an open and complete implementation of the SOAP 1.1 (and
          > W3C's follow-on standard XP).
          >
          > A corollary of this statement would be we intend to support any subset
          > thereof, including the BDG subset you defined. A caution however - should
          > there ever surface a difference between a proported subset and the
          > published standard, we will comply with the standard.
          >
          > Meanwhile, I do plan to meet face to face with a number of Apache
          > developers at ApacheCon next week, and my offer to host a face to face for
          > soapbuilders on the 19th and 20th in Raleigh still stands.
          >
          > - Sam Ruby
          >
          >
          >
          > 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
          ... Snapshot your document whenever you like. In my opinion, in this business functionally stabilized is just another euphamism for dead. ... While
          Message 4 of 19 , Mar 30, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Dave Winer wrote:
            >
            > I totally accept this point of view, and am *almost* fully satisfied.
            >
            > What I'd like to ask is that we compress the time between these two
            events:
            >
            > 1. Freezing of the BDG and

            Snapshot your document whenever you like. In my opinion, in this business
            "functionally stabilized" is just another euphamism for dead.

            > 2. Discovery of incompatibilities with the SOAP 1.1 spec.

            While incompatibilities are possible, what is more of a concern to me is
            areas where the specs are incomplete. For example:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/611

            I picked this example because it is (1) current, (2), an example where both
            the Apache and Frontier implementations respond in a completely
            inappropriate manner, and (3) an area where the BDG is silent.

            - Sam Ruby
          • Sanjiva Weerawarana
            I m not sure I understand the motivation for BDG .. is it a subset of SOAP that s interoperable *today* with various implementations or a subset that s the
            Message 5 of 19 , Mar 30, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm not sure I understand the motivation for BDG .. is it a subset
              of SOAP that's interoperable *today* with various implementations
              or a subset that's the *target* for interoperability. If its the
              latter then its effectively an alternate to full SOAP and I'm not
              sure that's a good idea.

              You mentioned something about "incompatibilities with the SOAP
              1.1 spec". I don't understand what that means .. incompatibilities
              between SOAP 1.1 and what? If you're taking about SOAP issues,
              there's already a SOAP issues list that's now maintained by the
              XML Protocol Working Group as they define the next rev on it.
               
              Sanjiva.
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:20 PM
              Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24 hours

              Sam, after our rough beginning, thank you very much for this respectful and
              very welcome response.

              I totally accept this point of view, and am *almost* fully satisfied.

              What I'd like to ask is that we compress the time between these two events:

              1. Freezing of the BDG and

              2. Discovery of incompatibilities with the SOAP 1.1 spec.

              I'm a member of the Church of Murphy, and that goes for specs too.

              If all goes as I hope it will, time spent today will be an investment
              towards powerful and inclusive interop in the coming months and years.

              Let's keep rolling.

              Dave

              PS: I've gotten four private committments from developers who plan to
              support the BDG subset. I've thanked each profusely and asked them (even
              begged) to make a public statement.


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@...>
              To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 8:58 AM
              Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24 hours


              > Dave, I don't know if you want to count this as "signing up" or not.  You
              > decide.
              >
              > The goal Apache xml-soap project (and it's follow on xml-axis) continues
              to
              > be to develop an open and complete implementation of the SOAP 1.1 (and
              > W3C's follow-on standard XP).
              >
              > A corollary of this statement would be we intend to support any subset
              > thereof, including the BDG subset you defined.  A caution however - should
              > there ever surface a difference between a proported subset and the
              > published standard, we will comply with the standard.
              >
              > Meanwhile, I do plan to meet face to face with a number of Apache
              > developers at ApacheCon next week, and my offer to host a face to face for
              > soapbuilders on the 19th and 20th in Raleigh still stands.
              >
              > - Sam Ruby
              >
              >
              >
              > 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/
              >
              >



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • Fredrik Lundh
              ... what he said ;-) (well, replace Apache with PythonWare, and xml-soap with soaplib.py, etc. you get the idea...) Cheers /F
              Message 6 of 19 , Mar 30, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                sam wrote:

                > The goal Apache xml-soap project (and it's follow on xml-axis) continues to
                > be to develop an open and complete implementation of the SOAP 1.1 (and
                > W3C's follow-on standard XP).
                >
                > A corollary of this statement would be we intend to support any subset
                > thereof, including the BDG subset you defined.

                what he said ;-)

                (well, replace Apache with PythonWare, and xml-soap with
                soaplib.py, etc. you get the idea...)

                Cheers /F
              • Paul Kulchenko
                Hi, Sam! I have another concern. ApacheSOAP introduced SOAPStruct and bound it to http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap as far as I remember. For interop services
                Message 7 of 19 , Mar 30, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi, Sam!

                  I have another concern. ApacheSOAP introduced SOAPStruct and bound it
                  to 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' as far as I remember. For interop
                  services they expect it to be 'http://www.xmethods.com/services',
                  MSToolkit expects it to be 'http://soapinterop.org/', and some others
                  look for 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap'. If it's just a plain
                  struct why don't come up with something UNIQUE, otherwise we'll have
                  HUGE problem in a future, because in addition to SOAPAction,
                  namespace and endpoint you'll need to know unnecessary details about
                  mapping STANDARD type (something similar we have now about xsd).
                  Let's make it permanent. I'm ok with everything, it could be
                  'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' or something else, just make it
                  FIXED (by default). Implementation may REQUIRE different binding, but
                  that's the part of the contract, and default value should be known
                  from spec. Comments?

                  Best wishes, Paul.

                  --- Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
                  > Dave Winer wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I totally accept this point of view, and am *almost* fully
                  > satisfied.
                  > >
                  > > What I'd like to ask is that we compress the time between these
                  > two
                  > events:
                  > >
                  > > 1. Freezing of the BDG and
                  >
                  > Snapshot your document whenever you like. In my opinion, in this
                  > business
                  > "functionally stabilized" is just another euphamism for dead.
                  >
                  > > 2. Discovery of incompatibilities with the SOAP 1.1 spec.
                  >
                  > While incompatibilities are possible, what is more of a concern to
                  > me is
                  > areas where the specs are incomplete. For example:
                  >
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/611
                  >
                  > I picked this example because it is (1) current, (2), an example
                  > where both
                  > the Apache and Frontier implementations respond in a completely
                  > inappropriate manner, and (3) an area where the BDG is silent.
                  >
                  > - Sam Ruby
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  >
                  > 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/
                  >
                  >


                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
                • Dave Winer
                  Sanjiva.. Sorry for the delay in responding. Things have gotten very busy. Briefly.. 1. The motivation is interop. I want to be able to write applications that
                  Message 8 of 19 , Mar 30, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Sanjiva..
                     
                    Sorry for the delay in responding. Things have gotten very busy. Briefly..
                     
                    1. The motivation is interop. I want to be able to write applications that talk to other applications running in other environments.
                     
                    2. The incompatibilities are the theoretical incompatibilities between the subset of SOAP described in the BDG and the SOAP 1.1 spec. They may not exist. If they do, I would like to hear about them now, not two weeks from now.
                     
                    Hope this helps..
                     
                    Dave
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:23 AM
                    Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24 hours

                    I'm not sure I understand the motivation for BDG .. is it a subset
                    of SOAP that's interoperable *today* with various implementations
                    or a subset that's the *target* for interoperability. If its the
                    latter then its effectively an alternate to full SOAP and I'm not
                    sure that's a good idea.

                    You mentioned something about "incompatibilities with the SOAP
                    1.1 spec". I don't understand what that means .. incompatibilities
                    between SOAP 1.1 and what? If you're taking about SOAP issues,
                    there's already a SOAP issues list that's now maintained by the
                    XML Protocol Working Group as they define the next rev on it.
                     
                    Sanjiva.
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:20 PM
                    Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24 hours

                    Sam, after our rough beginning, thank you very much for this respectful and
                    very welcome response.

                    I totally accept this point of view, and am *almost* fully satisfied.

                    What I'd like to ask is that we compress the time between these two events:

                    1. Freezing of the BDG and

                    2. Discovery of incompatibilities with the SOAP 1.1 spec.

                    I'm a member of the Church of Murphy, and that goes for specs too.

                    If all goes as I hope it will, time spent today will be an investment
                    towards powerful and inclusive interop in the coming months and years.

                    Let's keep rolling.

                    Dave

                    PS: I've gotten four private committments from developers who plan to
                    support the BDG subset. I've thanked each profusely and asked them (even
                    begged) to make a public statement.


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@...>
                    To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 8:58 AM
                    Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24 hours


                    > Dave, I don't know if you want to count this as "signing up" or not.  You
                    > decide.
                    >
                    > The goal Apache xml-soap project (and it's follow on xml-axis) continues
                    to
                    > be to develop an open and complete implementation of the SOAP 1.1 (and
                    > W3C's follow-on standard XP).
                    >
                    > A corollary of this statement would be we intend to support any subset
                    > thereof, including the BDG subset you defined.  A caution however - should
                    > there ever surface a difference between a proported subset and the
                    > published standard, we will comply with the standard.
                    >
                    > Meanwhile, I do plan to meet face to face with a number of Apache
                    > developers at ApacheCon next week, and my offer to host a face to face for
                    > soapbuilders on the 19th and 20th in Raleigh still stands.
                    >
                    > - Sam Ruby
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > 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/
                    >
                    >



                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  • Paul Kulchenko
                    Hi, All! When I send iso-8859-1 with cyrillic symbols, it returns correct with utf-8 encoding: request:
                    Message 9 of 19 , Mar 30, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi, All!

                      When I send iso-8859-1 with cyrillic symbols, it returns correct with
                      utf-8 encoding:

                      request:
                      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><SOAP-ENV:Envelope
                      xsi:type="xsd:string">������</inputString>

                      response:
                      <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
                      <return xsi:type="xsd:string">T�+�T�T�T�+�</return>

                      echoString (iso-8859-1, cyr) ok

                      now I'm sending exactly THE SAME text in utf-8 encoding, but getting
                      something else back:

                      request:
                      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns:SOAP-
                      xsi:type="xsd:string">T�+�T�T�T�+�</inputString>

                      response:
                      <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
                      <return xsi:type="xsd:string">+�T�+�T�+�T�+�T�+�T�+�T�</return>

                      echoString (UTF-8, cyr) not ok ('+�T�+�T�+�T�+�T�+�T�+�T�' instead of
                      'T�+�T�T�T�+�')

                      Comments? Who is right/wrong? My request doesn't have charset in HTTP
                      header if it's important.

                      Best wishes, Paul.

                      POST http://services.xmethods.net:8080/soap/servlet/rpcrouter
                      Accept: text/xml
                      Accept: multipart/*
                      Content-Length: 529
                      Content-Type: text/xml
                      SOAPAction: ""

                      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><SOAP-ENV:Envelope
                      xmlns:SOAP-ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"
                      SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"
                      xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance"
                      xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
                      xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"><SOAP-ENV:Body><namesp1:echoString
                      xmlns:namesp1="urn:xmethodsInterop"><inputString
                      xsi:type="xsd:string">������</inputString></namesp1:echoString></SOAP-ENV:Body></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>

                      HTTP/1.0 200 OK
                      Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:04:12 GMT
                      Content-Language: en
                      Content-Length: 473
                      Content-Type: text/xml; charset=utf-8
                      Client-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:08:58 GMT
                      Client-Peer: 206.135.115.105:8080
                      Servlet-Engine: Tomcat Web Server/3.1 (JSP 1.1; Servlet 2.2; Java
                      1.3.0; SunOS 5.8 sparc; java.vendor=Sun Microsystems Inc.)
                      Set-Cookie: JSESSIONID=To57733mC906940067398991At;Path=/soap
                      Set-Cookie2:
                      JSESSIONID=To57733mC906940067398991At;Version=1;Discard;Path="/soap"
                      Status: 200

                      <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>

                      <SOAP-ENV:Envelope
                      xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
                      xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance"
                      xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema">
                      <SOAP-ENV:Body>
                      <ns1:echoStringResponse xmlns:ns1="urn:xmethodsInterop"
                      SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/">
                      <return xsi:type="xsd:string">T�+�T�T�T�+�</return>
                      </ns1:echoStringResponse>
                      </SOAP-ENV:Body>
                      </SOAP-ENV:Envelope>

                      echoString (iso-8859-1, cyr) ok

                      POST http://services.xmethods.net:8080/soap/servlet/rpcrouter
                      Accept: text/xml
                      Accept: multipart/*
                      Content-Length: 530
                      Content-Type: text/xml
                      SOAPAction: ""

                      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><SOAP-ENV:Envelope
                      xmlns:SOAP-ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"
                      SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"
                      xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance"
                      xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
                      xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"><SOAP-ENV:Body><namesp2:echoString
                      xmlns:namesp2="urn:xmethodsInterop"><inputString
                      xsi:type="xsd:string">T�+�T�T�T�+�</inputString></namesp2:echoString></SOAP-ENV:Body></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
                      HTTP/1.0 200 OK
                      Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:04:13 GMT
                      Content-Language: en
                      Content-Length: 485
                      Content-Type: text/xml; charset=utf-8
                      Client-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:08:59 GMT
                      Client-Peer: 206.135.115.105:8080
                      Servlet-Engine: Tomcat Web Server/3.1 (JSP 1.1; Servlet 2.2; Java
                      1.3.0; SunOS 5.8 sparc; java.vendor=Sun Microsystems Inc.)
                      Set-Cookie: JSESSIONID=To57734mC8232630591515799At;Path=/soap
                      Set-Cookie2:
                      JSESSIONID=To57734mC8232630591515799At;Version=1;Discard;Path="/soap"
                      Status: 200

                      <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>

                      <SOAP-ENV:Envelope
                      xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
                      xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance"
                      xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema">
                      <SOAP-ENV:Body>
                      <ns1:echoStringResponse xmlns:ns1="urn:xmethodsInterop"
                      SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/">
                      <return xsi:type="xsd:string">+�T�+�T�+�T�+�T�+�T�+�T�</return>
                      </ns1:echoStringResponse>
                      </SOAP-ENV:Body>
                      </SOAP-ENV:Envelope>

                      echoString (UTF-8, cyr) not ok ('+�T�+�T�+�T�+�T�+�T�+�T�' instead of
                      'T�+�T�T�T�+�')



                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                      http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
                    • Jake Savin
                      inline. -Jake ... I m leaning in this direction, but I would really like to hear from an Apache person before making a decision on this point. Also, I don t
                      Message 10 of 19 , Mar 31, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        inline. -Jake

                        on 3/31/01 1:08 AM, Fredrik Lundh at fredrik@... wrote:

                        > paul wrote:
                        >
                        >> I have another concern. ApacheSOAP introduced SOAPStruct and bound it
                        >> to 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' as far as I remember. For interop
                        >> services they expect it to be 'http://www.xmethods.com/services',
                        >> MSToolkit expects it to be 'http://soapinterop.org/', and some others
                        >> look for 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap'. If it's just a plain
                        >> struct why don't come up with something UNIQUE
                        >
                        > from the stupid questions department:
                        >
                        > why not just leave it out? if there is no xsi:type attribute,
                        > assume it's a struct (unless you have metadata that says
                        > otherwise).

                        I'm leaning in this direction, but I would really like to hear from an
                        Apache person before making a decision on this point.

                        Also, I don't know if any other implementations have similar requirements.
                        Do you?

                        >> Implementation may REQUIRE different binding, but that's
                        >> the part of the contract, and default value should be known
                        >> from spec.
                        >
                        > agreed.

                        Likewise.
                      • Fredrik Lundh
                        ... from the stupid questions department: why not just leave it out? if there is no xsi:type attribute, assume it s a struct (unless you have metadata that
                        Message 11 of 19 , Mar 31, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          paul wrote:

                          > I have another concern. ApacheSOAP introduced SOAPStruct and bound it
                          > to 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' as far as I remember. For interop
                          > services they expect it to be 'http://www.xmethods.com/services',
                          > MSToolkit expects it to be 'http://soapinterop.org/', and some others
                          > look for 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap'. If it's just a plain
                          > struct why don't come up with something UNIQUE

                          from the stupid questions department:

                          why not just leave it out? if there is no xsi:type attribute,
                          assume it's a struct (unless you have metadata that says
                          otherwise).

                          > Implementation may REQUIRE different binding, but that's
                          > the part of the contract, and default value should be known
                          > from spec.

                          agreed.

                          Cheers /F
                        • Tony Hong
                          Paul, The Apache ilab interop point that I have up at XMethods registered the qualified xsi:type http://www.xmethods.com/services:SOAPStruct as a type that
                          Message 12 of 19 , Mar 31, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Paul,

                            The Apache ilab interop point that I have up at XMethods registered the
                            qualified xsi:type "http://www.xmethods.com/services:SOAPStruct" as a type
                            that maps to the Apache bean deserializer, which is essentially the standard
                            Apache struct deserializer. That namespace, and for that matter the
                            "SOAPStruct" type, was an arbitrary name I made up for this particular test
                            a couple of months ago. I could just as well have it expect namespace/type
                            of xsi:type = "http://foo.org/:bar" by changing a deployment parameter.

                            According to the test endpoint spec we put out, implementations should use
                            "http://soapinterop.org/:SOAPStruct" (see schema and namespace
                            specification in echoStruct section) . My Apache endpoint is one of those
                            "legacy" endpoints from before this process began ( and thus, before we
                            standardized on these names). Your email reminded me about the old
                            namespace used for SOAPStruct; I had forgotten about this. I will upgrade
                            the service this weekend to use all the standard values, along with
                            upgrading to the latest nightly apache build, and I'll send out an email
                            about this so anyone who's had problems with the namespace on the struct can
                            retest. I apologize if this has caused heartburn.

                            By the way, if anyone on the Apache team would like to take over the Apache
                            endpoint so that it can be maintained properly with the builds, etc , I
                            promise I will put up a minimum of resistence :-)

                            Thanks,
                            Tony

                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: Paul Kulchenko [mailto:paulclinger@...]
                            > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:41 AM
                            > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24 hours
                            >
                            >
                            > Hi, Sam!
                            >
                            > I have another concern. ApacheSOAP introduced SOAPStruct and bound it
                            > to 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' as far as I remember. For interop
                            > services they expect it to be 'http://www.xmethods.com/services',
                            > MSToolkit expects it to be 'http://soapinterop.org/', and some others
                            > look for 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap'. If it's just a plain
                            > struct why don't come up with something UNIQUE, otherwise we'll have
                            > HUGE problem in a future, because in addition to SOAPAction,
                            > namespace and endpoint you'll need to know unnecessary details about
                            > mapping STANDARD type (something similar we have now about xsd).
                            > Let's make it permanent. I'm ok with everything, it could be
                            > 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' or something else, just make it
                            > FIXED (by default). Implementation may REQUIRE different binding, but
                            > that's the part of the contract, and default value should be known
                            > from spec. Comments?
                            >
                            > Best wishes, Paul.
                            >
                            > --- Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
                            > > Dave Winer wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > I totally accept this point of view, and am *almost* fully
                            > > satisfied.
                            > > >
                            > > > What I'd like to ask is that we compress the time between these
                            > > two
                            > > events:
                            > > >
                            > > > 1. Freezing of the BDG and
                            > >
                            > > Snapshot your document whenever you like. In my opinion, in this
                            > > business
                            > > "functionally stabilized" is just another euphamism for dead.
                            > >
                            > > > 2. Discovery of incompatibilities with the SOAP 1.1 spec.
                            > >
                            > > While incompatibilities are possible, what is more of a concern to
                            > > me is
                            > > areas where the specs are incomplete. For example:
                            > >
                            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/611
                            > >
                            > > I picked this example because it is (1) current, (2), an example
                            > > where both
                            > > the Apache and Frontier implementations respond in a completely
                            > > inappropriate manner, and (3) an area where the BDG is silent.
                            > >
                            > > - Sam Ruby
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            > >
                            > > 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/
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            > __________________________________________________
                            > Do You Yahoo!?
                            > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                            > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
                            >
                            >
                            > 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 Tony, Do you have a POV on the issue with specifying or not specifying types on struct elements? I m looking for some direction here, so that I can resolve
                            Message 13 of 19 , Mar 31, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Tony,

                              Do you have a POV on the issue with specifying or not specifying types on
                              struct elements?

                              I'm looking for some direction here, so that I can resolve the last remaning
                              issue on my BDG issues page:

                              http://jake.soapware.org/outstandingBdgIssues

                              (Comments are welcome from the Apache group, of course.)

                              Thanks,

                              -Jake

                              on 3/31/01 1:32 AM, Tony Hong at thong@... wrote:

                              > Paul,
                              >
                              > The Apache ilab interop point that I have up at XMethods registered the
                              > qualified xsi:type "http://www.xmethods.com/services:SOAPStruct" as a type
                              > that maps to the Apache bean deserializer, which is essentially the standard
                              > Apache struct deserializer. That namespace, and for that matter the
                              > "SOAPStruct" type, was an arbitrary name I made up for this particular test
                              > a couple of months ago. I could just as well have it expect namespace/type
                              > of xsi:type = "http://foo.org/:bar" by changing a deployment parameter.
                              >
                              > According to the test endpoint spec we put out, implementations should use
                              > "http://soapinterop.org/:SOAPStruct" (see schema and namespace
                              > specification in echoStruct section) . My Apache endpoint is one of those
                              > "legacy" endpoints from before this process began ( and thus, before we
                              > standardized on these names). Your email reminded me about the old
                              > namespace used for SOAPStruct; I had forgotten about this. I will upgrade
                              > the service this weekend to use all the standard values, along with
                              > upgrading to the latest nightly apache build, and I'll send out an email
                              > about this so anyone who's had problems with the namespace on the struct can
                              > retest. I apologize if this has caused heartburn.
                              >
                              > By the way, if anyone on the Apache team would like to take over the Apache
                              > endpoint so that it can be maintained properly with the builds, etc , I
                              > promise I will put up a minimum of resistence :-)
                              >
                              > Thanks,
                              > Tony
                              >
                              >> -----Original Message-----
                              >> From: Paul Kulchenko [mailto:paulclinger@...]
                              >> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:41 AM
                              >> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                              >> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24 hours
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> Hi, Sam!
                              >>
                              >> I have another concern. ApacheSOAP introduced SOAPStruct and bound it
                              >> to 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' as far as I remember. For interop
                              >> services they expect it to be 'http://www.xmethods.com/services',
                              >> MSToolkit expects it to be 'http://soapinterop.org/', and some others
                              >> look for 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap'. If it's just a plain
                              >> struct why don't come up with something UNIQUE, otherwise we'll have
                              >> HUGE problem in a future, because in addition to SOAPAction,
                              >> namespace and endpoint you'll need to know unnecessary details about
                              >> mapping STANDARD type (something similar we have now about xsd).
                              >> Let's make it permanent. I'm ok with everything, it could be
                              >> 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' or something else, just make it
                              >> FIXED (by default). Implementation may REQUIRE different binding, but
                              >> that's the part of the contract, and default value should be known
                              >> from spec. Comments?
                              >>
                              >> Best wishes, Paul.
                              >>
                              >> --- Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
                              >>> Dave Winer wrote:
                              >>>>
                              >>>> I totally accept this point of view, and am *almost* fully
                              >>> satisfied.
                              >>>>
                              >>>> What I'd like to ask is that we compress the time between these
                              >>> two
                              >>> events:
                              >>>>
                              >>>> 1. Freezing of the BDG and
                              >>>
                              >>> Snapshot your document whenever you like. In my opinion, in this
                              >>> business
                              >>> "functionally stabilized" is just another euphamism for dead.
                              >>>
                              >>>> 2. Discovery of incompatibilities with the SOAP 1.1 spec.
                              >>>
                              >>> While incompatibilities are possible, what is more of a concern to
                              >>> me is
                              >>> areas where the specs are incomplete. For example:
                              >>>
                              >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/611
                              >>>
                              >>> I picked this example because it is (1) current, (2), an example
                              >>> where both
                              >>> the Apache and Frontier implementations respond in a completely
                              >>> inappropriate manner, and (3) an area where the BDG is silent.
                              >>>
                              >>> - Sam Ruby
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                              >>>
                              >>> 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/
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> __________________________________________________
                              >> Do You Yahoo!?
                              >> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                              >> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> 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/
                              >>
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              >
                            • Tony Hong
                              Hi Jake, In the case specifically of Apache and struct typing (which is where the issue is , right?) As you may know, since 2.1, Apache allows the deployer to
                              Message 14 of 19 , Mar 31, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Jake,

                                In the case specifically of Apache and struct typing (which is where the
                                issue is , right?)

                                As you may know, since 2.1, Apache allows the deployer to manually map
                                incoming parameters to deserializers; in previous versions, this mapping was
                                done purely off the typing on the wire (which is why apache was strict in
                                the explicit typing issue).

                                So now, I should be able to deploy the service such that it no longer
                                requires incoming explicit typing, and I believe that should also hold for
                                the struct.

                                When I do the upgrade this weekend, I'll see if I can get it to work that
                                way and send a report to the list when I announce the upgrade /
                                standardization of params. I haven't actually tried this yet, so I can't
                                pre-guarantee success....

                                (Corrections/additions from anyone on the apache team are most welcome)

                                cheers,
                                Tony

                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: Jake Savin [mailto:jake@...]
                                > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 1:42 AM
                                > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24 hours
                                >
                                >
                                > Hi Tony,
                                >
                                > Do you have a POV on the issue with specifying or not specifying types on
                                > struct elements?
                                >
                                > I'm looking for some direction here, so that I can resolve the
                                > last remaning
                                > issue on my BDG issues page:
                                >
                                > http://jake.soapware.org/outstandingBdgIssues
                                >
                                > (Comments are welcome from the Apache group, of course.)
                                >
                                > Thanks,
                                >
                                > -Jake
                                >
                                > on 3/31/01 1:32 AM, Tony Hong at thong@... wrote:
                                >
                                > > Paul,
                                > >
                                > > The Apache ilab interop point that I have up at XMethods registered the
                                > > qualified xsi:type
                                > "http://www.xmethods.com/services:SOAPStruct" as a type
                                > > that maps to the Apache bean deserializer, which is essentially
                                > the standard
                                > > Apache struct deserializer. That namespace, and for that matter the
                                > > "SOAPStruct" type, was an arbitrary name I made up for this
                                > particular test
                                > > a couple of months ago. I could just as well have it expect
                                > namespace/type
                                > > of xsi:type = "http://foo.org/:bar" by changing a deployment parameter.
                                > >
                                > > According to the test endpoint spec we put out, implementations
                                > should use
                                > > "http://soapinterop.org/:SOAPStruct" (see schema and namespace
                                > > specification in echoStruct section) . My Apache endpoint is
                                > one of those
                                > > "legacy" endpoints from before this process began ( and thus, before we
                                > > standardized on these names). Your email reminded me about the old
                                > > namespace used for SOAPStruct; I had forgotten about this. I
                                > will upgrade
                                > > the service this weekend to use all the standard values, along with
                                > > upgrading to the latest nightly apache build, and I'll send out an email
                                > > about this so anyone who's had problems with the namespace on
                                > the struct can
                                > > retest. I apologize if this has caused heartburn.
                                > >
                                > > By the way, if anyone on the Apache team would like to take
                                > over the Apache
                                > > endpoint so that it can be maintained properly with the builds, etc , I
                                > > promise I will put up a minimum of resistence :-)
                                > >
                                > > Thanks,
                                > > Tony
                                > >
                                > >> -----Original Message-----
                                > >> From: Paul Kulchenko [mailto:paulclinger@...]
                                > >> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:41 AM
                                > >> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                                > >> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24 hours
                                > >>
                                > >>
                                > >> Hi, Sam!
                                > >>
                                > >> I have another concern. ApacheSOAP introduced SOAPStruct and bound it
                                > >> to 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' as far as I remember. For interop
                                > >> services they expect it to be 'http://www.xmethods.com/services',
                                > >> MSToolkit expects it to be 'http://soapinterop.org/', and some others
                                > >> look for 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap'. If it's just a plain
                                > >> struct why don't come up with something UNIQUE, otherwise we'll have
                                > >> HUGE problem in a future, because in addition to SOAPAction,
                                > >> namespace and endpoint you'll need to know unnecessary details about
                                > >> mapping STANDARD type (something similar we have now about xsd).
                                > >> Let's make it permanent. I'm ok with everything, it could be
                                > >> 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' or something else, just make it
                                > >> FIXED (by default). Implementation may REQUIRE different binding, but
                                > >> that's the part of the contract, and default value should be known
                                > >> from spec. Comments?
                                > >>
                                > >> Best wishes, Paul.
                                > >>
                                > >> --- Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
                                > >>> Dave Winer wrote:
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>> I totally accept this point of view, and am *almost* fully
                                > >>> satisfied.
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>> What I'd like to ask is that we compress the time between these
                                > >>> two
                                > >>> events:
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>> 1. Freezing of the BDG and
                                > >>>
                                > >>> Snapshot your document whenever you like. In my opinion, in this
                                > >>> business
                                > >>> "functionally stabilized" is just another euphamism for dead.
                                > >>>
                                > >>>> 2. Discovery of incompatibilities with the SOAP 1.1 spec.
                                > >>>
                                > >>> While incompatibilities are possible, what is more of a concern to
                                > >>> me is
                                > >>> areas where the specs are incomplete. For example:
                                > >>>
                                > >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/611
                                > >>>
                                > >>> I picked this example because it is (1) current, (2), an example
                                > >>> where both
                                > >>> the Apache and Frontier implementations respond in a completely
                                > >>> inappropriate manner, and (3) an area where the BDG is silent.
                                > >>>
                                > >>> - Sam Ruby
                                > >>>
                                > >>>
                                > >>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                > >>>
                                > >>> 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/
                                > >>>
                                > >>>
                                > >>
                                > >>
                                > >> __________________________________________________
                                > >> Do You Yahoo!?
                                > >> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                                > >> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
                                > >>
                                > >>
                                > >> 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/
                                >>
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > 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/
                                >
                                >



                                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
                                Comments inline. -Jake ... Yes, I think that s correct, but nobody has told me if any other implementations specify type explicitly for struct elements. ... I
                                Message 15 of 19 , Mar 31, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Comments inline. -Jake

                                  on 3/31/01 1:49 AM, Tony Hong at thong@... wrote:

                                  > Hi Jake,
                                  >
                                  > In the case specifically of Apache and struct typing (which is where the
                                  > issue is , right?)

                                  Yes, I think that's correct, but nobody has told me if any other
                                  implementations specify type explicitly for struct elements.

                                  > As you may know, since 2.1, Apache allows the deployer to manually map
                                  > incoming parameters to deserializers; in previous versions, this mapping was
                                  > done purely off the typing on the wire (which is why apache was strict in
                                  > the explicit typing issue).

                                  I didn't know this, not being an Apache expert myeslf. ;->

                                  > So now, I should be able to deploy the service such that it no longer
                                  > requires incoming explicit typing, and I believe that should also hold for
                                  > the struct.
                                  >
                                  > When I do the upgrade this weekend, I'll see if I can get it to work that
                                  > way and send a report to the list when I announce the upgrade /
                                  > standardization of params. I haven't actually tried this yet, so I can't
                                  > pre-guarantee success....

                                  I'm looking forward to hearing your test results. Thanks!

                                  > (Corrections/additions from anyone on the apache team are most welcome)

                                  Agreed!

                                  > cheers,
                                  > Tony
                                  >
                                  >> -----Original Message-----
                                  >> From: Jake Savin [mailto:jake@...]
                                  >> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 1:42 AM
                                  >> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                                  >> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24 hours
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >> Hi Tony,
                                  >>
                                  >> Do you have a POV on the issue with specifying or not specifying types on
                                  >> struct elements?
                                  >>
                                  >> I'm looking for some direction here, so that I can resolve the
                                  >> last remaning
                                  >> issue on my BDG issues page:
                                  >>
                                  >> http://jake.soapware.org/outstandingBdgIssues
                                  >>
                                  >> (Comments are welcome from the Apache group, of course.)
                                  >>
                                  >> Thanks,
                                  >>
                                  >> -Jake
                                  >>
                                  >> on 3/31/01 1:32 AM, Tony Hong at thong@... wrote:
                                • Jake Savin
                                  For the benefit of list members, this is the last item on my outstanding issues lists for the BDG: http://jake.soapware.org/outstandingBdgIssues#structTyping
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Mar 31, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    For the benefit of list members, this is the last item on my outstanding
                                    issues lists for the BDG:

                                    http://jake.soapware.org/outstandingBdgIssues#structTyping

                                    Here's where we seem to be at right now:

                                    >>>>> [Paul Kulchenko]
                                    >>>>> SOAP::Lite provides it for compatibility, but don't require it. I
                                    >>>>> still think that namespacefor this type should be fixed.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> [Jake Savin]
                                    >>>> What would you propose to do? We could add the type, but as far as
                                    >>>> I know,
                                    >>>> Apache is the only implementation which requires it, no? I'm still
                                    >>>> somewhat
                                    >>>> in the dark here. Do any others on the list have an opinion?
                                    >>>>
                                    >>> [Paul Kulchenko]
                                    >>> I'd rather do two things. First, fix namespace for type for
                                    >>> structures AND do not REQUIRE it, but keep for ambiguous cases, like
                                    >>> <something/>. Is it empty string or empty struct? I'd like to have
                                    >>> ability to specify it explicitly. otherwise type on structs is NOT
                                    >>> required.
                                    >>
                                    >> [Jake Savin]
                                    >> What would the namespace be? Could you post an example? (Also --
                                    >> others, please chime in here -- thanks.)
                                    >>
                                    > [Paul Kulchenko]
                                    > Let's listen first and then decide on URI.

                                    So -- I'm looking for feedback, primarily from any Apache people.

                                    If I don't hear anything, then I'll probably have to assume that
                                    unqualified, untyped elements which have sub-elements will be treated as
                                    structs. I'm assuming that other implementations (Apache aside) do this, so
                                    please correct me if I'm wrong.

                                    Basically, I'm saying that the BDG probably won't change on structs, unless
                                    people tell me that we should use more restrictive language on this point,
                                    than we already are.

                                    Thanks,

                                    -Jake
                                  • Paul Kulchenko
                                    Hi, Tony! ... Right, I know it, but that s exactly my point. Why for standard type (Struct) we should have custom namespace? Why don t make it permanent and
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Mar 31, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi, Tony!

                                      > qualified xsi:type "http://www.xmethods.com/services:SOAPStruct"
                                      > as a type
                                      > that maps to the Apache bean deserializer, which is essentially the
                                      > standard
                                      > Apache struct deserializer. That namespace, and for that matter the
                                      > "SOAPStruct" type, was an arbitrary name I made up for this
                                      > particular test
                                      > a couple of months ago. I could just as well have it expect
                                      Right, I know it, but that's exactly my point. Why for standard type
                                      (Struct) we should have custom namespace? Why don't make it permanent
                                      and you don't need to specify it in client code, SOAP processor can
                                      take care about it.

                                      Best wishes, Paul.

                                      --- Tony Hong <thong@...> wrote:
                                      > qualified xsi:type "http://www.xmethods.com/services:SOAPStruct"
                                      > as a type
                                      > that maps to the Apache bean deserializer, which is essentially the
                                      > standard
                                      > Apache struct deserializer. That namespace, and for that matter the
                                      > "SOAPStruct" type, was an arbitrary name I made up for this
                                      > particular test
                                      > a couple of months ago. I could just as well have it expect
                                      > namespace/type
                                      > of xsi:type = "http://foo.org/:bar" by changing a deployment
                                      > parameter.
                                      >
                                      > According to the test endpoint spec we put out, implementations
                                      > should use
                                      > "http://soapinterop.org/:SOAPStruct" (see schema and namespace
                                      > specification in echoStruct section) . My Apache endpoint is one of
                                      > those
                                      > "legacy" endpoints from before this process began ( and thus,
                                      > before we
                                      > standardized on these names). Your email reminded me about the old
                                      > namespace used for SOAPStruct; I had forgotten about this. I will
                                      > upgrade
                                      > the service this weekend to use all the standard values, along with
                                      > upgrading to the latest nightly apache build, and I'll send out an
                                      > email
                                      > about this so anyone who's had problems with the namespace on the
                                      > struct can
                                      > retest. I apologize if this has caused heartburn.
                                      >
                                      > By the way, if anyone on the Apache team would like to take over
                                      > the Apache
                                      > endpoint so that it can be maintained properly with the builds, etc
                                      > , I
                                      > promise I will put up a minimum of resistence :-)
                                      >
                                      > Thanks,
                                      > Tony
                                      >
                                      > > -----Original Message-----
                                      > > From: Paul Kulchenko [mailto:paulclinger@...]
                                      > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:41 AM
                                      > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24
                                      > hours
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Hi, Sam!
                                      > >
                                      > > I have another concern. ApacheSOAP introduced SOAPStruct and
                                      > bound it
                                      > > to 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' as far as I remember. For
                                      > interop
                                      > > services they expect it to be 'http://www.xmethods.com/services',
                                      > > MSToolkit expects it to be 'http://soapinterop.org/', and some
                                      > others
                                      > > look for 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap'. If it's just a plain
                                      > > struct why don't come up with something UNIQUE, otherwise we'll
                                      > have
                                      > > HUGE problem in a future, because in addition to SOAPAction,
                                      > > namespace and endpoint you'll need to know unnecessary details
                                      > about
                                      > > mapping STANDARD type (something similar we have now about xsd).
                                      > > Let's make it permanent. I'm ok with everything, it could be
                                      > > 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' or something else, just make it
                                      > > FIXED (by default). Implementation may REQUIRE different binding,
                                      > but
                                      > > that's the part of the contract, and default value should be
                                      > known
                                      > > from spec. Comments?
                                      > >
                                      > > Best wishes, Paul.
                                      > >
                                      > > --- Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
                                      > > > Dave Winer wrote:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > I totally accept this point of view, and am *almost* fully
                                      > > > satisfied.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > What I'd like to ask is that we compress the time between
                                      > these
                                      > > > two
                                      > > > events:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > 1. Freezing of the BDG and
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Snapshot your document whenever you like. In my opinion, in
                                      > this
                                      > > > business
                                      > > > "functionally stabilized" is just another euphamism for dead.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > > 2. Discovery of incompatibilities with the SOAP 1.1 spec.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > While incompatibilities are possible, what is more of a concern
                                      > to
                                      > > > me is
                                      > > > areas where the specs are incomplete. For example:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/611
                                      > > >
                                      > > > I picked this example because it is (1) current, (2), an
                                      > example
                                      > > > where both
                                      > > > the Apache and Frontier implementations respond in a completely
                                      > > > inappropriate manner, and (3) an area where the BDG is silent.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > - Sam Ruby
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                      > > >
                                      > > > 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/
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > __________________________________________________
                                      > > Do You Yahoo!?
                                      > > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                                      > > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > 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/
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                      >
                                      > 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/
                                      >
                                      >


                                      __________________________________________________
                                      Do You Yahoo!?
                                      Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                                      http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
                                    • Paul Kulchenko
                                      Hi, Frederik! ... That s exactly what I m doing now. Ony case I can see whan you may need it is to distinguish between empty string (untyped) and empty struct:
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Mar 31, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi, Frederik!

                                        --- Fredrik Lundh <fredrik@...> wrote:
                                        > > look for 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap'. If it's just a plain
                                        > > struct why don't come up with something UNIQUE
                                        >
                                        > from the stupid questions department:
                                        > why not just leave it out? if there is no xsi:type attribute,
                                        > assume it's a struct (unless you have metadata that says
                                        > otherwise).
                                        That's exactly what I'm doing now. Ony case I can see whan you may
                                        need it is to distinguish between empty string (untyped) and empty
                                        struct: <element/>

                                        Best wishes, Paul.


                                        __________________________________________________
                                        Do You Yahoo!?
                                        Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                                        http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
                                      • Tony Hong
                                        Hi paul, I think the way the apache engine is thinking about it here, is that the type isn t being associated with the fact that it s simply a struct, but that
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Mar 31, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hi paul,

                                          I think the way the apache engine is thinking about it here, is that the
                                          type isn't being associated with the fact that it's simply a struct, but
                                          that it's a structure with definition

                                          <complexType name="SOAPStruct">
                                          <sequence>
                                          <element name="varString" type="xsd:string" />
                                          <element name="varInt" type="xsd:int" />
                                          <element name="varFloat" type="xsd:float" />
                                          </sequence>
                                          </complexType>

                                          So this type isn't a "standard" type - it's a user defined type, so that's
                                          why it get its own name and namespace.

                                          cheers, tony

                                          > -----Original Message-----
                                          > From: Paul Kulchenko [mailto:paulclinger@...]
                                          > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 7:40 AM
                                          > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24 hours
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Hi, Tony!
                                          >
                                          > > qualified xsi:type "http://www.xmethods.com/services:SOAPStruct"
                                          > > as a type
                                          > > that maps to the Apache bean deserializer, which is essentially the
                                          > > standard
                                          > > Apache struct deserializer. That namespace, and for that matter the
                                          > > "SOAPStruct" type, was an arbitrary name I made up for this
                                          > > particular test
                                          > > a couple of months ago. I could just as well have it expect
                                          > Right, I know it, but that's exactly my point. Why for standard type
                                          > (Struct) we should have custom namespace? Why don't make it permanent
                                          > and you don't need to specify it in client code, SOAP processor can
                                          > take care about it.
                                          >
                                          > Best wishes, Paul.
                                          >
                                          > --- Tony Hong <thong@...> wrote:
                                          > > qualified xsi:type "http://www.xmethods.com/services:SOAPStruct"
                                          > > as a type
                                          > > that maps to the Apache bean deserializer, which is essentially the
                                          > > standard
                                          > > Apache struct deserializer. That namespace, and for that matter the
                                          > > "SOAPStruct" type, was an arbitrary name I made up for this
                                          > > particular test
                                          > > a couple of months ago. I could just as well have it expect
                                          > > namespace/type
                                          > > of xsi:type = "http://foo.org/:bar" by changing a deployment
                                          > > parameter.
                                          > >
                                          > > According to the test endpoint spec we put out, implementations
                                          > > should use
                                          > > "http://soapinterop.org/:SOAPStruct" (see schema and namespace
                                          > > specification in echoStruct section) . My Apache endpoint is one of
                                          > > those
                                          > > "legacy" endpoints from before this process began ( and thus,
                                          > > before we
                                          > > standardized on these names). Your email reminded me about the old
                                          > > namespace used for SOAPStruct; I had forgotten about this. I will
                                          > > upgrade
                                          > > the service this weekend to use all the standard values, along with
                                          > > upgrading to the latest nightly apache build, and I'll send out an
                                          > > email
                                          > > about this so anyone who's had problems with the namespace on the
                                          > > struct can
                                          > > retest. I apologize if this has caused heartburn.
                                          > >
                                          > > By the way, if anyone on the Apache team would like to take over
                                          > > the Apache
                                          > > endpoint so that it can be maintained properly with the builds, etc
                                          > > , I
                                          > > promise I will put up a minimum of resistence :-)
                                          > >
                                          > > Thanks,
                                          > > Tony
                                          > >
                                          > > > -----Original Message-----
                                          > > > From: Paul Kulchenko [mailto:paulclinger@...]
                                          > > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:41 AM
                                          > > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                                          > > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] [Political]: Extending another 24
                                          > > hours
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Hi, Sam!
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I have another concern. ApacheSOAP introduced SOAPStruct and
                                          > > bound it
                                          > > > to 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' as far as I remember. For
                                          > > interop
                                          > > > services they expect it to be 'http://www.xmethods.com/services',
                                          > > > MSToolkit expects it to be 'http://soapinterop.org/', and some
                                          > > others
                                          > > > look for 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap'. If it's just a plain
                                          > > > struct why don't come up with something UNIQUE, otherwise we'll
                                          > > have
                                          > > > HUGE problem in a future, because in addition to SOAPAction,
                                          > > > namespace and endpoint you'll need to know unnecessary details
                                          > > about
                                          > > > mapping STANDARD type (something similar we have now about xsd).
                                          > > > Let's make it permanent. I'm ok with everything, it could be
                                          > > > 'http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap' or something else, just make it
                                          > > > FIXED (by default). Implementation may REQUIRE different binding,
                                          > > but
                                          > > > that's the part of the contract, and default value should be
                                          > > known
                                          > > > from spec. Comments?
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Best wishes, Paul.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > --- Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
                                          > > > > Dave Winer wrote:
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > I totally accept this point of view, and am *almost* fully
                                          > > > > satisfied.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > What I'd like to ask is that we compress the time between
                                          > > these
                                          > > > > two
                                          > > > > events:
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > 1. Freezing of the BDG and
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Snapshot your document whenever you like. In my opinion, in
                                          > > this
                                          > > > > business
                                          > > > > "functionally stabilized" is just another euphamism for dead.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > > 2. Discovery of incompatibilities with the SOAP 1.1 spec.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > While incompatibilities are possible, what is more of a concern
                                          > > to
                                          > > > > me is
                                          > > > > areas where the specs are incomplete. For example:
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/611
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > I picked this example because it is (1) current, (2), an
                                          > > example
                                          > > > > where both
                                          > > > > the Apache and Frontier implementations respond in a completely
                                          > > > > inappropriate manner, and (3) an area where the BDG is silent.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > - Sam Ruby
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > 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/
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > __________________________________________________
                                          > > > Do You Yahoo!?
                                          > > > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                                          > > > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > 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/
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                          > >
                                          > > 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/
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > __________________________________________________
                                          > Do You Yahoo!?
                                          > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                                          > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > 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/
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.