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

RE: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues

Expand Messages
  • Simon Fell
    based on [1], I think that this is right thing, in particular the sentence In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
    Message 1 of 23 , Mar 30, 2001
      based on [1], I think that this is right thing, in particular the sentence

      "In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
      "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate conformance with the
      SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with potentially tighter
      rules added)."

      So, making the encodingStyle be http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg
      as per Paul's suggestion seems to be entirely correct. AFAICS, the BDG
      encoding is a subset of the section 5 encoding, If it isn't, then there
      probably should be some other URI for this. (I guess this is the crux of the
      issue). Unfortunately, Don didn't name specifics when he said it wasn't
      section 5.

      Cheers
      Simon
      [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383495

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
      Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:26 PM
      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues


      My concern is that someone could say "BDG is not SOAP 1.1." If changing the
      URL enables that then I'm against it. If changing the URL doesn't in any way
      detract from its SOAPy goodness then let's go. Andrew's and Don's response
      makes me wonder what they're up to. I thought we were doing the right thing.
      I tried to make it clear that implementing the full spec was not a
      possibility for UserLand. Can't speak for any other developers. Dave


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
      To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:19 PM
      Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues


      > Hi, Dave!
      >
      > Yes, it should address it. At least that's exactly what Keith was
      > talking about. I would rather disagree with Don, but his concern is
      > right and since it's subset in my understanding it may be based on
      > value for section 5 encodingStyle.
      >
      > Best wishes, Paul.
      >
      > --- Dave Winer <dave@...> wrote:
      > > Do you think that would address Andrew Layman's concern expressed
      > > on the
      > > Developmentor SOAP mail list? I have to admit I found Andrew's
      > > comments
      > > puzzling, I wasn't sure what the basis was for his concern. Is it
      > > the URL
      > > that we use here? If that's the only problem, then let's change it
      > > for sure.
      > > No problemmo. Dave
      > >
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
      > > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Cc: <jake@...>
      > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:32 PM
      > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
      > >
      > >
      > > > Hi, Simon and others!
      > > >
      > > > I have one more issue. Why don't alter encodingStyle to
      > > > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg or something else?
      > > >
      > > > It's it perfectly spec conformant:
      > > >
      > > > 4.1.1. In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
      > > > "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate conformance
      > > with
      > > > the SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with
      > > potentially
      > > > tighter rules added).
      > > >
      > > > That's exactly what we need.
      > > >
      > > > And it would specify that implementation support ONLY subset if
      > > > required and at the same time doesn't change anything in existent
      > > > implementations. It will also provide correct fallback if
      > > application
      > > > does NOT want to reply/support BDG.
      > > >
      > > > Maybe not all application will handle this functionality
      > > > out-of-the-box, but it's easy to add and imho the way to go.
      > > >
      > > > Comments?
      > > >
      > > > Best wishes, Paul.
      > > >
      > > > --- Simon Fell <sfell@...> wrote:
      > > > > These are two outstanding issues from my comments last night.
      > > > >
      > > > > 1. in the types section, there is an xsd:base64, i think this
      > > > > should be
      > > > > SOAP-ENC:base64, the SOAP specific base64 encoded type, see
      > > section
      > > > > 5.2.3 of
      > > > > the SOAP 1.1 spec. From an implementation POV, it should be
      > > easier
      > > > > to
      > > > > implement as you don't have to worry about line lengths
      > > > >
      > > > > 2. Is the response example, an example of the response to the
      > > > > example
      > > > > request ? If so, the request, has a namespace qualified
      > > methodname
      > > > > of
      > > > > <m:getStateName xmlns:m="http://www.soapware.org/"> whilst the
      > > > > response is
      > > > > unqualified <getStateNameResponse>. The namespace of the
      > > response
      > > > > should
      > > > > match the namespace of the request (This really should be
      > > mentioned
      > > > > in the
      > > > > response section)
      > > > >
      > > > > Cheers
      > > > > Simon
      > > > >
      > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > From: Jake Savin [mailto:jake@...]
      > > > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:00 PM
      > > > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Hello all,
      > > > >
      > > > > I'm compiling a list of outstanding issues with the Busy
      > > Developers
      > > > > Guide.
      > > > > They're on this page:
      > > > >
      > > > > http://jake.soapware.org/outstandingBdgIssues
      > > > >
      > > > > If you have any outstanding issues, please send an email to the
      > > > > list, and CC
      > > > > me, and I'll make sure it's added to the page.
      > > > >
      > > > > I also added the page to the list's bookmarks.
      > > > >
      > > > > Thanks,
      > > > >
      > > > > -Jake
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > 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/
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------ 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/
    • Paul Kulchenko
      Hi, Dave! I don t think that it s something to be concern about. That s the right way, because you may specify THIS URI and any implementation that is SOAP
      Message 2 of 23 , Mar 30, 2001
        Hi, Dave!

        I don't think that it's something to be concern about. That's the
        right way, because you may specify THIS URI and any implementation
        that is SOAP conformant will know how to deal with it and shouldn't
        have any problems. At the same time ANY BDG implementation will know
        how to deal with it and shouldn't face any problem. If BDG
        implementation will get message with SOAP encodingStyle that it may
        decide whether fail or not this request, but they are clearly
        distinguishable situations. Otherwise you don't have any reason to
        define may or may not you handle this request. it's like send XML-RPC
        request to SOAP endpoint and hope that it'll be handled.

        Best wishes, Paul.

        --- Dave Winer <dave@...> wrote:
        > My concern is that someone could say "BDG is not SOAP 1.1." If
        > changing the
        > URL enables that then I'm against it. If changing the URL doesn't
        > in any way
        > detract from its SOAPy goodness then let's go. Andrew's and Don's
        > response
        > makes me wonder what they're up to. I thought we were doing the
        > right thing.
        > I tried to make it clear that implementing the full spec was not a
        > possibility for UserLand. Can't speak for any other developers.
        > Dave
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
        > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:19 PM
        > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
        >
        >
        > > Hi, Dave!
        > >
        > > Yes, it should address it. At least that's exactly what Keith was
        > > talking about. I would rather disagree with Don, but his concern
        > is
        > > right and since it's subset in my understanding it may be based
        > on
        > > value for section 5 encodingStyle.
        > >
        > > Best wishes, Paul.
        > >
        > > --- Dave Winer <dave@...> wrote:
        > > > Do you think that would address Andrew Layman's concern
        > expressed
        > > > on the
        > > > Developmentor SOAP mail list? I have to admit I found Andrew's
        > > > comments
        > > > puzzling, I wasn't sure what the basis was for his concern. Is
        > it
        > > > the URL
        > > > that we use here? If that's the only problem, then let's change
        > it
        > > > for sure.
        > > > No problemmo. Dave
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
        > > > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
        > > > Cc: <jake@...>
        > > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:32 PM
        > > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > > Hi, Simon and others!
        > > > >
        > > > > I have one more issue. Why don't alter encodingStyle to
        > > > > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg or something
        > else?
        > > > >
        > > > > It's it perfectly spec conformant:
        > > > >
        > > > > 4.1.1. In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
        > > > > "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate
        > conformance
        > > > with
        > > > > the SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with
        > > > potentially
        > > > > tighter rules added).
        > > > >
        > > > > That's exactly what we need.
        > > > >
        > > > > And it would specify that implementation support ONLY subset
        > if
        > > > > required and at the same time doesn't change anything in
        > existent
        > > > > implementations. It will also provide correct fallback if
        > > > application
        > > > > does NOT want to reply/support BDG.
        > > > >
        > > > > Maybe not all application will handle this functionality
        > > > > out-of-the-box, but it's easy to add and imho the way to go.
        > > > >
        > > > > Comments?
        > > > >
        > > > > Best wishes, Paul.
        > > > >
        > > > > --- Simon Fell <sfell@...> wrote:
        > > > > > These are two outstanding issues from my comments last
        > night.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > 1. in the types section, there is an xsd:base64, i think
        > this
        > > > > > should be
        > > > > > SOAP-ENC:base64, the SOAP specific base64 encoded type, see
        > > > section
        > > > > > 5.2.3 of
        > > > > > the SOAP 1.1 spec. From an implementation POV, it should be
        > > > easier
        > > > > > to
        > > > > > implement as you don't have to worry about line lengths
        > > > > >
        > > > > > 2. Is the response example, an example of the response to
        > the
        > > > > > example
        > > > > > request ? If so, the request, has a namespace qualified
        > > > methodname
        > > > > > of
        > > > > > <m:getStateName xmlns:m="http://www.soapware.org/"> whilst
        > the
        > > > > > response is
        > > > > > unqualified <getStateNameResponse>. The namespace of the
        > > > response
        > > > > > should
        > > > > > match the namespace of the request (This really should be
        > > > mentioned
        > > > > > in the
        > > > > > response section)
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Cheers
        > > > > > Simon
        > > > > >
        > > > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > > > From: Jake Savin [mailto:jake@...]
        > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:00 PM
        > > > > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Hello all,
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I'm compiling a list of outstanding issues with the Busy
        > > > Developers
        > > > > > Guide.
        > > > > > They're on this page:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > http://jake.soapware.org/outstandingBdgIssues
        > > > > >
        > > > > > If you have any outstanding issues, please send an email to
        > the
        > > > > > list, and CC
        > > > > > me, and I'll make sure it's added to the page.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I also added the page to the list's bookmarks.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Thanks,
        > > > > >
        > > > > > -Jake
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > 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/
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ------------------------ 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/
        > > >
        > > >
        >
        === message truncated ===


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
        http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
      • Dave Winer
        OK, this is good enough for me. For the record, I explicitly suggested to Don and to Andrew that they raise their issues here, where the work is going on.
        Message 3 of 23 , Mar 30, 2001
          OK, this is good enough for me.

          For the record, I explicitly suggested to Don and to Andrew that they raise
          their issues here, where the work is going on.

          Thanks Simon, as usual for your clarity..

          Dave


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Simon Fell" <sfell@...>
          To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:34 PM
          Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues


          > based on [1], I think that this is right thing, in particular the sentence
          >
          > "In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
          > "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate conformance with the
          > SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with potentially tighter
          > rules added)."
          >
          > So, making the encodingStyle be
          http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg
          > as per Paul's suggestion seems to be entirely correct. AFAICS, the BDG
          > encoding is a subset of the section 5 encoding, If it isn't, then there
          > probably should be some other URI for this. (I guess this is the crux of
          the
          > issue). Unfortunately, Don didn't name specifics when he said it wasn't
          > section 5.
          >
          > Cheers
          > Simon
          > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383495
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
          > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:26 PM
          > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
          >
          >
          > My concern is that someone could say "BDG is not SOAP 1.1." If changing
          the
          > URL enables that then I'm against it. If changing the URL doesn't in any
          way
          > detract from its SOAPy goodness then let's go. Andrew's and Don's response
          > makes me wonder what they're up to. I thought we were doing the right
          thing.
          > I tried to make it clear that implementing the full spec was not a
          > possibility for UserLand. Can't speak for any other developers. Dave
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
          > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:19 PM
          > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
          >
          >
          > > Hi, Dave!
          > >
          > > Yes, it should address it. At least that's exactly what Keith was
          > > talking about. I would rather disagree with Don, but his concern is
          > > right and since it's subset in my understanding it may be based on
          > > value for section 5 encodingStyle.
          > >
          > > Best wishes, Paul.
          > >
          > > --- Dave Winer <dave@...> wrote:
          > > > Do you think that would address Andrew Layman's concern expressed
          > > > on the
          > > > Developmentor SOAP mail list? I have to admit I found Andrew's
          > > > comments
          > > > puzzling, I wasn't sure what the basis was for his concern. Is it
          > > > the URL
          > > > that we use here? If that's the only problem, then let's change it
          > > > for sure.
          > > > No problemmo. Dave
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > > From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
          > > > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
          > > > Cc: <jake@...>
          > > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:32 PM
          > > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > > Hi, Simon and others!
          > > > >
          > > > > I have one more issue. Why don't alter encodingStyle to
          > > > > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg or something else?
          > > > >
          > > > > It's it perfectly spec conformant:
          > > > >
          > > > > 4.1.1. In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
          > > > > "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate conformance
          > > > with
          > > > > the SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with
          > > > potentially
          > > > > tighter rules added).
          > > > >
          > > > > That's exactly what we need.
          > > > >
          > > > > And it would specify that implementation support ONLY subset if
          > > > > required and at the same time doesn't change anything in existent
          > > > > implementations. It will also provide correct fallback if
          > > > application
          > > > > does NOT want to reply/support BDG.
          > > > >
          > > > > Maybe not all application will handle this functionality
          > > > > out-of-the-box, but it's easy to add and imho the way to go.
          > > > >
          > > > > Comments?
          > > > >
          > > > > Best wishes, Paul.
          > > > >
          > > > > --- Simon Fell <sfell@...> wrote:
          > > > > > These are two outstanding issues from my comments last night.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > 1. in the types section, there is an xsd:base64, i think this
          > > > > > should be
          > > > > > SOAP-ENC:base64, the SOAP specific base64 encoded type, see
          > > > section
          > > > > > 5.2.3 of
          > > > > > the SOAP 1.1 spec. From an implementation POV, it should be
          > > > easier
          > > > > > to
          > > > > > implement as you don't have to worry about line lengths
          > > > > >
          > > > > > 2. Is the response example, an example of the response to the
          > > > > > example
          > > > > > request ? If so, the request, has a namespace qualified
          > > > methodname
          > > > > > of
          > > > > > <m:getStateName xmlns:m="http://www.soapware.org/"> whilst the
          > > > > > response is
          > > > > > unqualified <getStateNameResponse>. The namespace of the
          > > > response
          > > > > > should
          > > > > > match the namespace of the request (This really should be
          > > > mentioned
          > > > > > in the
          > > > > > response section)
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Cheers
          > > > > > Simon
          > > > > >
          > > > > > -----Original Message-----
          > > > > > From: Jake Savin [mailto:jake@...]
          > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:00 PM
          > > > > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
          > > > > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Hello all,
          > > > > >
          > > > > > I'm compiling a list of outstanding issues with the Busy
          > > > Developers
          > > > > > Guide.
          > > > > > They're on this page:
          > > > > >
          > > > > > http://jake.soapware.org/outstandingBdgIssues
          > > > > >
          > > > > > If you have any outstanding issues, please send an email to the
          > > > > > list, and CC
          > > > > > me, and I'll make sure it's added to the page.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > I also added the page to the list's bookmarks.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Thanks,
          > > > > >
          > > > > > -Jake
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > 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/
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > ------------------------ 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/
          >
          >
        • Paul Kulchenko
          Hi, Dave! One more little comment. If we stay with this URI http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg I think it should have trailing slash, so correct
          Message 4 of 23 , Mar 30, 2001
            Hi, Dave!

            One more little comment. If we stay with this URI

            http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg

            I think it should have trailing slash, so correct version is:

            http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg/

            Hope that's the latest one. Will take a break for 30 minutes :)).

            Best wishes, Paul.

            --- Dave Winer <dave@...> wrote:
            > OK, this is good enough for me.
            >
            > For the record, I explicitly suggested to Don and to Andrew that
            > they raise
            > their issues here, where the work is going on.
            >
            > Thanks Simon, as usual for your clarity..
            >
            > Dave
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "Simon Fell" <sfell@...>
            > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:34 PM
            > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
            >
            >
            > > based on [1], I think that this is right thing, in particular the
            > sentence
            > >
            > > "In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
            > > "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate conformance
            > with the
            > > SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with potentially
            > tighter
            > > rules added)."
            > >
            > > So, making the encodingStyle be
            > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg
            > > as per Paul's suggestion seems to be entirely correct. AFAICS,
            > the BDG
            > > encoding is a subset of the section 5 encoding, If it isn't, then
            > there
            > > probably should be some other URI for this. (I guess this is the
            > crux of
            > the
            > > issue). Unfortunately, Don didn't name specifics when he said it
            > wasn't
            > > section 5.
            > >
            > > Cheers
            > > Simon
            > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383495
            > >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
            > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:26 PM
            > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
            > >
            > >
            > > My concern is that someone could say "BDG is not SOAP 1.1." If
            > changing
            > the
            > > URL enables that then I'm against it. If changing the URL doesn't
            > in any
            > way
            > > detract from its SOAPy goodness then let's go. Andrew's and Don's
            > response
            > > makes me wonder what they're up to. I thought we were doing the
            > right
            > thing.
            > > I tried to make it clear that implementing the full spec was not
            > a
            > > possibility for UserLand. Can't speak for any other developers.
            > Dave
            > >
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
            > > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
            > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:19 PM
            > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
            > >
            > >
            > > > Hi, Dave!
            > > >
            > > > Yes, it should address it. At least that's exactly what Keith
            > was
            > > > talking about. I would rather disagree with Don, but his
            > concern is
            > > > right and since it's subset in my understanding it may be based
            > on
            > > > value for section 5 encodingStyle.
            > > >
            > > > Best wishes, Paul.
            > > >
            > > > --- Dave Winer <dave@...> wrote:
            > > > > Do you think that would address Andrew Layman's concern
            > expressed
            > > > > on the
            > > > > Developmentor SOAP mail list? I have to admit I found
            > Andrew's
            > > > > comments
            > > > > puzzling, I wasn't sure what the basis was for his concern.
            > Is it
            > > > > the URL
            > > > > that we use here? If that's the only problem, then let's
            > change it
            > > > > for sure.
            > > > > No problemmo. Dave
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > > > From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
            > > > > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
            > > > > Cc: <jake@...>
            > > > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:32 PM
            > > > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > > Hi, Simon and others!
            > > > > >
            > > > > > I have one more issue. Why don't alter encodingStyle to
            > > > > > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg or something
            > else?
            > > > > >
            > > > > > It's it perfectly spec conformant:
            > > > > >
            > > > > > 4.1.1. In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
            > > > > > "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate
            > conformance
            > > > > with
            > > > > > the SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with
            > > > > potentially
            > > > > > tighter rules added).
            > > > > >
            > > > > > That's exactly what we need.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > And it would specify that implementation support ONLY
            > subset if
            > > > > > required and at the same time doesn't change anything in
            > existent
            > > > > > implementations. It will also provide correct fallback if
            > > > > application
            > > > > > does NOT want to reply/support BDG.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Maybe not all application will handle this functionality
            > > > > > out-of-the-box, but it's easy to add and imho the way to
            > go.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Comments?
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Best wishes, Paul.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > --- Simon Fell <sfell@...> wrote:
            > > > > > > These are two outstanding issues from my comments last
            > night.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > 1. in the types section, there is an xsd:base64, i think
            > this
            > > > > > > should be
            > > > > > > SOAP-ENC:base64, the SOAP specific base64 encoded type,
            > see
            > > > > section
            > > > > > > 5.2.3 of
            > > > > > > the SOAP 1.1 spec. From an implementation POV, it should
            > be
            > > > > easier
            > > > > > > to
            > > > > > > implement as you don't have to worry about line lengths
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > 2. Is the response example, an example of the response to
            > the
            > > > > > > example
            > > > > > > request ? If so, the request, has a namespace qualified
            > > > > methodname
            > > > > > > of
            > > > > > > <m:getStateName xmlns:m="http://www.soapware.org/">
            > whilst the
            > > > > > > response is
            > > > > > > unqualified <getStateNameResponse>. The namespace of the
            > > > > response
            > > > > > > should
            > > > > > > match the namespace of the request (This really should be
            > > > > mentioned
            > > > > > > in the
            > > > > > > response section)
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Cheers
            > > > > > > Simon
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
            > > > > > > From: Jake Savin [mailto:jake@...]
            > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:00 PM
            > > > > > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Hello all,
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > I'm compiling a list of outstanding issues with the Busy
            > > > > Developers
            > > > > > > Guide.
            > > > > > > They're on this page:
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > http://jake.soapware.org/outstandingBdgIssues
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > If you have any outstanding issues, please send an email
            > to the
            >
            === message truncated ===


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
            http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
          • Jake Savin
            I went ahead and made this change (including the trailing slash Paul recommended): http://www.xmlrpc.com/aBusyDevelopersGuideToSoap11#requestExample (The
            Message 5 of 23 , Mar 30, 2001
              I went ahead and made this change (including the trailing slash Paul
              recommended):

              http://www.xmlrpc.com/aBusyDevelopersGuideToSoap11#requestExample

              (The response and fault examples reflect the change as well.)

              I also changed the values for booleans from true/false to 1/0.

              For anyone who may have missed it, here's the BDG change notes page:

              http://www.xmlrpc.com/bdgChangeNotes

              ...And here's my list of outstanding issues (which I'm also updating as
              changes are made):

              http://jake.soapware.org/outstandingBdgIssues

              -Jake

              on 3/30/01 3:36 PM, Dave Winer at dave@... wrote:

              > OK, this is good enough for me.
              >
              > For the record, I explicitly suggested to Don and to Andrew that they raise
              > their issues here, where the work is going on.
              >
              > Thanks Simon, as usual for your clarity..
              >
              > Dave
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "Simon Fell" <sfell@...>
              > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:34 PM
              > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
              >
              >
              >> based on [1], I think that this is right thing, in particular the sentence
              >>
              >> "In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
              >> "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate conformance with the
              >> SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with potentially tighter
              >> rules added)."
              >>
              >> So, making the encodingStyle be
              > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg
              >> as per Paul's suggestion seems to be entirely correct. AFAICS, the BDG
              >> encoding is a subset of the section 5 encoding, If it isn't, then there
              >> probably should be some other URI for this. (I guess this is the crux of
              > the
              >> issue). Unfortunately, Don didn't name specifics when he said it wasn't
              >> section 5.
              >>
              >> Cheers
              >> Simon
              >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383495
              >>
              >> -----Original Message-----
              >> From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
              >> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:26 PM
              >> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
              >> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
              >>
              >>
              >> My concern is that someone could say "BDG is not SOAP 1.1." If changing
              > the
              >> URL enables that then I'm against it. If changing the URL doesn't in any
              > way
              >> detract from its SOAPy goodness then let's go. Andrew's and Don's response
              >> makes me wonder what they're up to. I thought we were doing the right
              > thing.
              >> I tried to make it clear that implementing the full spec was not a
              >> possibility for UserLand. Can't speak for any other developers. Dave
              >>
              >>
              >> ----- Original Message -----
              >> From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
              >> To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
              >> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:19 PM
              >> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
              >>
              >>
              >>> Hi, Dave!
              >>>
              >>> Yes, it should address it. At least that's exactly what Keith was
              >>> talking about. I would rather disagree with Don, but his concern is
              >>> right and since it's subset in my understanding it may be based on
              >>> value for section 5 encodingStyle.
              >>>
              >>> Best wishes, Paul.
              >>>
              >>> --- Dave Winer <dave@...> wrote:
              >>>> Do you think that would address Andrew Layman's concern expressed
              >>>> on the
              >>>> Developmentor SOAP mail list? I have to admit I found Andrew's
              >>>> comments
              >>>> puzzling, I wasn't sure what the basis was for his concern. Is it
              >>>> the URL
              >>>> that we use here? If that's the only problem, then let's change it
              >>>> for sure.
              >>>> No problemmo. Dave
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>> ----- Original Message -----
              >>>> From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
              >>>> To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
              >>>> Cc: <jake@...>
              >>>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:32 PM
              >>>> Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>> Hi, Simon and others!
              >>>>>
              >>>>> I have one more issue. Why don't alter encodingStyle to
              >>>>> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg or something else?
              >>>>>
              >>>>> It's it perfectly spec conformant:
              >>>>>
              >>>>> 4.1.1. In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
              >>>>> "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate conformance
              >>>> with
              >>>>> the SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with
              >>>> potentially
              >>>>> tighter rules added).
              >>>>>
              >>>>> That's exactly what we need.
              >>>>>
              >>>>> And it would specify that implementation support ONLY subset if
              >>>>> required and at the same time doesn't change anything in existent
              >>>>> implementations. It will also provide correct fallback if
              >>>> application
              >>>>> does NOT want to reply/support BDG.
              >>>>>
              >>>>> Maybe not all application will handle this functionality
              >>>>> out-of-the-box, but it's easy to add and imho the way to go.
              >>>>>
              >>>>> Comments?
              >>>>>
              >>>>> Best wishes, Paul.
              >>>>>
              >>>>> --- Simon Fell <sfell@...> wrote:
              >>>>>> These are two outstanding issues from my comments last night.
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> 1. in the types section, there is an xsd:base64, i think this
              >>>>>> should be
              >>>>>> SOAP-ENC:base64, the SOAP specific base64 encoded type, see
              >>>> section
              >>>>>> 5.2.3 of
              >>>>>> the SOAP 1.1 spec. From an implementation POV, it should be
              >>>> easier
              >>>>>> to
              >>>>>> implement as you don't have to worry about line lengths
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> 2. Is the response example, an example of the response to the
              >>>>>> example
              >>>>>> request ? If so, the request, has a namespace qualified
              >>>> methodname
              >>>>>> of
              >>>>>> <m:getStateName xmlns:m="http://www.soapware.org/"> whilst the
              >>>>>> response is
              >>>>>> unqualified <getStateNameResponse>. The namespace of the
              >>>> response
              >>>>>> should
              >>>>>> match the namespace of the request (This really should be
              >>>> mentioned
              >>>>>> in the
              >>>>>> response section)
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> Cheers
              >>>>>> Simon
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
              >>>>>> From: Jake Savin [mailto:jake@...]
              >>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:00 PM
              >>>>>> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
              >>>>>> Subject: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> Hello all,
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> I'm compiling a list of outstanding issues with the Busy
              >>>> Developers
              >>>>>> Guide.
              >>>>>> They're on this page:
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> http://jake.soapware.org/outstandingBdgIssues
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> If you have any outstanding issues, please send an email to the
              >>>>>> list, and CC
              >>>>>> me, and I'll make sure it's added to the page.
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> I also added the page to the list's bookmarks.
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> Thanks,
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> -Jake
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> 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/
              >>>>>
              >>>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>> ------------------------ 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/
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              > 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/
              >
              >
            • Fredrik Lundh
              ... me too -- and my understanding is that this is already happening. -1 from here, unless I here good arguments from other SOAP authors (is Henrik here?)
              Message 6 of 23 , Mar 31, 2001
                dave wrote:

                > My concern is that someone could say "BDG is not SOAP 1.1."
                > If changing the URL enables that then I'm against it.

                me too -- and my understanding is that this is already
                happening.

                -1 from here, unless I here good arguments from other
                SOAP authors (is Henrik here?)

                Cheers /F
              • Jake Savin
                ... I think the SOAP spec specifically says that as long as the URI is a sub-URI of http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/ indicates conformance with the
                Message 7 of 23 , Mar 31, 2001
                  on 3/31/01 12:36 AM, Fredrik Lundh at fredrik@... wrote:

                  > dave wrote:
                  >
                  >> My concern is that someone could say "BDG is not SOAP 1.1."
                  >> If changing the URL enables that then I'm against it.
                  >
                  > me too -- and my understanding is that this is already
                  > happening.
                  >
                  > -1 from here, unless I here good arguments from other
                  > SOAP authors (is Henrik here?)
                  >
                  > Cheers /F

                  I think the SOAP spec specifically says that as long as the URI is a sub-URI
                  of http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/ indicates "conformance with the
                  SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5"

                  See this message from Simon Fell:

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/679

                  ...and Section 4.1.1 of the SOAP 1.1 spec:

                  http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383495

                  "The serialization rules defined by SOAP in section 5 are identified by the
                  URI "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/". Messages using this
                  particular serialization SHOULD indicate this using the SOAP encodingStyle
                  attribute. In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
                  "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate conformance with the
                  SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with potentially tighter
                  rules added)."

                  I don't think anyone could say that "BDG is not SOAP 1.1" with this
                  argument. Do you agree?

                  -Jake
                • Fredrik Lundh
                  ... Have you tried it? My tests indicate that only one server actually checked the encoding URI, and it didn t like the BDG version... But thinking some more,
                  Message 8 of 23 , Mar 31, 2001
                    jake wrote:
                    > I think the SOAP spec specifically says that as long as the URI is a sub-URI
                    > of http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/ indicates "conformance with the
                    > SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5"

                    Have you tried it? My tests indicate that only one server
                    actually checked the encoding URI, and it didn't like the
                    BDG version...

                    But thinking some more, I think the main difference here is
                    that I don't see (and I refuse to see) the BDG as a protocol
                    variant. Instead, the BDG describes a set of restrictions
                    that a SOAP-based application may chose to enforce.

                    There's nothing in the SOAP specification that says that
                    an application cannot say "sorry, I don't understand that
                    request", even if it's handed a syntactically valid SOAP
                    package.

                    The BDG simply specifies what your application (consisting
                    of your code, plus a BDG-compatible stack) MUST to under-
                    stand, in order to be "BDG compliant".

                    It's still 100% SOAP 1.1; all it does is adding some policy
                    to the mechanisms. If you don't like the policy, don't use
                    it.

                    Cheers /F
                  • Fredrik Lundh
                    ... another aspect is that if you re requiring a sub-URI, you re locking out any client application that isn t set up to use a nonstandard encoding. I can deal
                    Message 9 of 23 , Mar 31, 2001
                      jake wrote:
                      > I think the SOAP spec specifically says that as long as the
                      > URI is a sub-URI of http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/
                      > indicates "conformance with the SOAP encoding rules defined
                      > in section 5"

                      another aspect is that if you're requiring a sub-URI, you're locking
                      out any client application that isn't set up to use a nonstandard
                      encoding.

                      I can deal with incoming sub-URI's in soaplib, but I'm not prepared
                      to add kludges to my code to generate a sub-URI on something
                      that is otherwise a perfectly valid SOAP request.

                      Cheers /F
                    • Dave Winer
                      ... argument. Do you agree? Fredrik and Jake, They can say it, but that don t make it so. We have to be prepared for flames. I assume Fredrik is talking about
                      Message 10 of 23 , Mar 31, 2001
                        >>I don't think anyone could say that "BDG is not SOAP 1.1" with this
                        argument. Do you agree?

                        Fredrik and Jake,

                        They can say it, but that don't make it so. We have to be prepared for
                        flames. I assume Fredrik is talking about Ken MacLeod's post. I also got one
                        from Josh Allen who used my statement about parameter order vs names a few
                        days ago as "evidence" that I was hijacking SOAP. What Josh doesn't know or
                        care to acknowledge is that we quickly changed the BDG to conform with the
                        SOAP spec. Ken also didn't know apparently that some of the changes broke
                        Frontier and Radio (we fixed them quickly).

                        My motive in wanting to do the BDG is to "get on with it." Right now my
                        whole development team is sucked into SOAP interop. This has to change. We
                        have customers who are waiting for us, and lives to live independent of this
                        process. It must reach closure. Just before I posted the link to BDG, Tony
                        had posted a message basically giving up. Clearly BDG was needed, perhaps
                        not by Microsoft or Ken MacLeod, but *we* needed it, and this is an open
                        process, and we have worked really hard to make it conform, yet the flames
                        continue.

                        But with Fredrik's help, I feel better, not alone fighting uncivilized foes.
                        The truth will win. What's next? I bet Microsoft is working on their own
                        BDG, offlist, designed to suck even more of our developer resources into the
                        arcanities of SOAP so we'll be unable to compete with them for developers.
                        Pure speculation on my part.

                        Disclaimer: all this was written before coffee. ;->

                        Dave
                      • Sam Ruby
                        ... We ... this ... Tony ... flames ... Just an overall comment on the process: an essentially unannounced 48 (or 72) hour window with the expectation to reach
                        Message 11 of 23 , Mar 31, 2001
                          Dave Winer wrote:
                          >
                          > My motive in wanting to do the BDG is to "get on with it." Right now my
                          > whole development team is sucked into SOAP interop. This has to change.
                          We
                          > have customers who are waiting for us, and lives to live independent of
                          this
                          > process. It must reach closure. Just before I posted the link to BDG,
                          Tony
                          > had posted a message basically giving up. Clearly BDG was needed, perhaps
                          > not by Microsoft or Ken MacLeod, but *we* needed it, and this is an open
                          > process, and we have worked really hard to make it conform, yet the
                          flames
                          > continue.

                          Just an overall comment on the process: an essentially unannounced 48 (or
                          72) hour window with the expectation to reach closure is not entirely fair
                          for those of us with preexisting "customers waiting for us, and lives to
                          live independent of this process"...

                          That being said, I am *VERY* pleased with the progress that is occurring
                          towards interop - whether the BDG was the catalyst, the end-point, or the
                          timing was entirely coincidental (my leanings are towards the first of the
                          three possibilities, but in the long run and if this is truly an egoless
                          environment, it matters not).

                          Examples of positive outcome: the identification of the misspelling of
                          "infinity" by Apache's Soap implementation. Despite the spec being clear,
                          we got it wrong. However, this could have gone undetected for a long
                          period of time as the Apache client and server implementations were
                          compatibly incorrect.

                          More troublesome is the thoughts of a subset. An example of which is that
                          it appears that the current implementation of Frontier does not support
                          exponential notation in floating point numbers. I see no issue with
                          Frontier never producing numbers with such notation, but it becomes
                          problematic if such numbers can not be consumed by this implementation. I
                          pick on this item, not because of any ill will towards Frontier, but as a
                          concrete and specific example of the dangers of subsetting the SOAP 1.1
                          specification. And even if the specific problem is addressed, the general
                          problem remains.

                          Less troublesome is the thought of extensions. For example, if a popular
                          new encoding arises with widespread support, then we all benefit. I
                          personally would prefer if such extensions were documented separately and
                          clearly marked as optional. It would also have been my preference to first
                          establish a basis of interop before discussing extensions, but if the
                          consensus is that doing both together helps speed up the process, then I
                          will not object.

                          <political>
                          Insert obvious reference to the dangers of subsetting, embracing, and
                          extending; in the name of "get[ting] on with it". The dangers are the
                          same whether you think of yourself as wearing a white had or a black
                          hat.
                          </political>

                          Meanwhile, back to my life independent of this process. It seems my wife
                          wants me to dig a hole in the backyard for her...

                          - Sam Ruby

                          P.S. Next week is actually worse for me personally.
                          http://apachecon.com/2001/US/
                        • Dave Winer
                          Sam, thanks for the thoughtful message. First, understand that while I have *some* experience with this kind of work, I m making it up as I go along. This
                          Message 12 of 23 , Mar 31, 2001
                            Sam, thanks for the thoughtful message.

                            First, understand that while I have *some* experience with this kind of
                            work, I'm making it up as I go along. This process works, if we are
                            flexible, all of us, and have a shared goal. When we started the BDG there
                            was a huge sense of urgency. To me SOAP flickers in and out of reality.
                            Every six months or so it seems like it has a chance to coalesce. I decided
                            that it was worth two days of full-out effort to try to get on top of it,
                            and say as clearly as possible, while people were listening, what we want to
                            do right now. Now that people are clearly in the loop, the hour-to-hour
                            urgency is past. I want to use the weekend to reflect and think and process,
                            so next week is as productive as the last week was.

                            I have a few holes to dig myself! ;->

                            Dave



                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@...>
                            To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 8:11 AM
                            Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues


                            > Dave Winer wrote:
                            > >
                            > > My motive in wanting to do the BDG is to "get on with it." Right now my
                            > > whole development team is sucked into SOAP interop. This has to change.
                            > We
                            > > have customers who are waiting for us, and lives to live independent of
                            > this
                            > > process. It must reach closure. Just before I posted the link to BDG,
                            > Tony
                            > > had posted a message basically giving up. Clearly BDG was needed,
                            perhaps
                            > > not by Microsoft or Ken MacLeod, but *we* needed it, and this is an open
                            > > process, and we have worked really hard to make it conform, yet the
                            > flames
                            > > continue.
                            >
                            > Just an overall comment on the process: an essentially unannounced 48 (or
                            > 72) hour window with the expectation to reach closure is not entirely fair
                            > for those of us with preexisting "customers waiting for us, and lives to
                            > live independent of this process"...
                            >
                            > That being said, I am *VERY* pleased with the progress that is occurring
                            > towards interop - whether the BDG was the catalyst, the end-point, or the
                            > timing was entirely coincidental (my leanings are towards the first of the
                            > three possibilities, but in the long run and if this is truly an egoless
                            > environment, it matters not).
                            >
                            > Examples of positive outcome: the identification of the misspelling of
                            > "infinity" by Apache's Soap implementation. Despite the spec being clear,
                            > we got it wrong. However, this could have gone undetected for a long
                            > period of time as the Apache client and server implementations were
                            > compatibly incorrect.
                            >
                            > More troublesome is the thoughts of a subset. An example of which is that
                            > it appears that the current implementation of Frontier does not support
                            > exponential notation in floating point numbers. I see no issue with
                            > Frontier never producing numbers with such notation, but it becomes
                            > problematic if such numbers can not be consumed by this implementation. I
                            > pick on this item, not because of any ill will towards Frontier, but as a
                            > concrete and specific example of the dangers of subsetting the SOAP 1.1
                            > specification. And even if the specific problem is addressed, the general
                            > problem remains.
                            >
                            > Less troublesome is the thought of extensions. For example, if a popular
                            > new encoding arises with widespread support, then we all benefit. I
                            > personally would prefer if such extensions were documented separately and
                            > clearly marked as optional. It would also have been my preference to
                            first
                            > establish a basis of interop before discussing extensions, but if the
                            > consensus is that doing both together helps speed up the process, then I
                            > will not object.
                            >
                            > <political>
                            > Insert obvious reference to the dangers of subsetting, embracing, and
                            > extending; in the name of "get[ting] on with it". The dangers are the
                            > same whether you think of yourself as wearing a white had or a black
                            > hat.
                            > </political>
                            >
                            > Meanwhile, back to my life independent of this process. It seems my wife
                            > wants me to dig a hole in the backyard for her...
                            >
                            > - Sam Ruby
                            >
                            > P.S. Next week is actually worse for me personally.
                            > http://apachecon.com/2001/US/
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            >
                            >
                          • Rich Salz
                            ... I am delighted to hear this. (This note crossed in the mail with mine.) For some strange reason *my* wife wants me to keep the water from flooding the
                            Message 13 of 23 , Mar 31, 2001
                              > Now that people are clearly in the loop, the hour-to-hour
                              > urgency is past. I want to use the weekend to reflect and think and
                              > process, so next week is as productive as the last week was.

                              I am delighted to hear this. (This note crossed in the mail with mine.)

                              For some strange reason *my* wife wants me to keep the water from
                              flooding the basement (I live about 30mi north of Boston, heavy soakage
                              around here :).
                              /r$
                            • Eric Kidd
                              ... I understand your concerns about subsetting. They are totally valid. But for some of us, it s either a subset of SOAP or no SOAP at all. Here s why: 1)
                              Message 14 of 23 , Mar 31, 2001
                                On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 11:11:16AM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
                                > <political>
                                > Insert obvious reference to the dangers of subsetting, embracing, and
                                > extending; in the name of "get[ting] on with it". The dangers are the
                                > same whether you think of yourself as wearing a white had or a black
                                > hat.
                                > </political>

                                I understand your concerns about subsetting. They are totally valid.

                                But for some of us, it's either a subset of SOAP or no SOAP at all. Here's
                                why:

                                1) SOAP 1.1 is big, and not especially strict.

                                It allows stacks to encode the same message in many different ways,
                                some of which are *unbelievably* hard to support in any reasonable
                                fashion: non-standard encoding styles, lots of omitted information,
                                exotic collection types, implicit attributes defined in DTDs or
                                Schemas, and so on.

                                Frankly, to support every single feature of SOAP correctly and
                                completely would take nearly forever. If anybody out there thinks
                                they support *all* of SOAP 1.1, please let me know. I'm almost
                                certain I can cause your endpoint to refuse some valid SOAP 1.1
                                message.

                                2) SOAP explicitly supports the creation of subsets.

                                "In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
                                "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate conformance with
                                the SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with potentially
                                tighter rules added)."

                                Realistically speaking, this means that (1) almost all SOAP implementations
                                will provide some subset of SOAP 1.1 and (2) the standard seems to allow
                                subsets.

                                Therefore, it would seem useful for everyone to support at least one common
                                subset. I don't especially care what that subset is, but I'd prefer it to
                                be small.

                                IMHO, SOAP BDG is as good as anything--I could implement a stack in a few
                                weeks, and fit it into an embedded device or end-user application without
                                noticable bloat.

                                Cheers,
                                Eric

                                --
                                XML-RPC HOWTO: http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XML-RPC-HOWTO/index.html
                                XML-RPC for C and C++: http://xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.net/
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.