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

Re: [soapbuilders] Fourth interop meeting

Expand Messages
  • Simon Fell
    Sam, thanks for driving this. The timing looks good, as does the location. I ve looked through the tests, and i don t see how this moves us forward, I couldn t
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 3, 2002
      Sam, thanks for driving this. The timing looks good, as does the
      location. I've looked through the tests, and i don't see how this
      moves us forward, I couldn't see anything that we didn't cover at the
      last F2F. There's been very little post F2F activity on the list, so
      its hard to gauge what the current state is, are people still working
      on issues / tests from the last round, or is everyone ready to tackle
      something new ?

      Cheers
      Simon
      www.pocketsoap.com

      On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:39:43 -0500, in soap you wrote:

      >At the last interop meeting [1] we talked about having the next meeting in
      >about three months in the bay area. I can arrange to host this at the IBM
      >Almaden facility [2]. How does this sound to people?
      >
      >As far as timing goes, we talked about doing this type of event roughly
      >quarterly. That would put things at the end of May or early June. It
      >turns out that there this an XML & Web Services One conference [3] in San
      >Jose, on the 4th-7th of June, so if we made our get together immediately
      >prior to this it could save a trip for people who desire to participate in
      >both.
      >
      >Finally, I see Tony has been busy working on specing out a demo for the
      >conference [4]. He's worked hard to make sure that the demo is inclusive.
      >My suggestion is that we make interop testing for these scenarios the focus
      >for the SOAPBuilder's event.
      >
      >Thoughts?
      >
      >- Sam Ruby
      >
      >[1] http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/Round_III_Logistics.htm
      >[2] http://www.almaden.ibm.com/almaden/visitorinfo.html
      >[3] http://www.xmlconference.com/sanjose/index.asp
      >[4] http://www.xmethods.net/idemo/spec/interfacedetails.doc
      >
      >
      >
      >-----------------------------------------------------------------
      >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
      >
      >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
    • Glen Daniels
      ... +1 ... +1 ... Great stuff! The one thing I see that s really missing from this demo is any usage of SOAP headers, which I d really like to see included.
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 19, 2002
        > At the last interop meeting [1] we talked about having the
        > next meeting in
        > about three months in the bay area. I can arrange to host
        > this at the IBM
        > Almaden facility [2]. How does this sound to people?

        +1

        > As far as timing goes, we talked about doing this type of
        > event roughly
        > quarterly. That would put things at the end of May or early June. It
        > turns out that there this an XML & Web Services One
        > conference [3] in San
        > Jose, on the 4th-7th of June, so if we made our get together
        > immediately
        > prior to this it could save a trip for people who desire to
        > participate in
        > both.

        +1

        > Finally, I see Tony has been busy working on specing out a
        > demo for the
        > conference [4]. He's worked hard to make sure that the demo
        > is inclusive.
        > My suggestion is that we make interop testing for these
        > scenarios the focus
        > for the SOAPBuilder's event.
        >
        > Thoughts?

        Great stuff! The one thing I see that's really missing from this demo is any usage of SOAP headers, which I'd really like to see included. Here's my suggestion:

        Have the Supplier interface require a simple form of authentication to use the service, namely a SOAP <someNS:authentication> header containing a simple "userID/password" structure. Accesses without the header will return an athentication fault. Then you add a "register" method, which does NOT require authentication:

        register(String userID) [RPC/Encoded]
        Returns a String (password)
        Possible Faults : "BadID" (already exists, etc)

        So Customers will first call register() to get a password for their desired userID, and then use that pair when talking to that Supplier in the future.

        What do y'all think? My take on this is that SOAP headers are a pretty critical piece of the puzzle and header interop is something that we should be paying a little more attention to....

        --Glen
      • Rebecca Dias
        +1 on the idemo What happened to SOAP with Attachments. What about being able to easily send certain content types and have them processed?
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 19, 2002
          +1 on the idemo

          What happened to SOAP with Attachments.  What about being able to easily send certain content types and have them processed?
           
           
          becky
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@...]
          Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 2:25 PM
          To: 'soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com'
          Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Fourth interop meeting


          > At the last interop meeting [1] we talked about having the
          > next meeting in
          > about three months in the bay area.  I can arrange to host
          > this at the IBM
          > Almaden facility [2].  How does this sound to people?

          +1

          > As far as timing goes, we talked about doing this type of
          > event roughly
          > quarterly.  That would put things at the end of May or early June.  It
          > turns out that there this an XML & Web Services One
          > conference [3] in San
          > Jose, on the 4th-7th of June, so if we made our get together
          > immediately
          > prior to this it could save a trip for people who desire to
          > participate in
          > both.

          +1

          > Finally, I see Tony has been busy working on specing out a
          > demo for the
          > conference [4].  He's worked hard to make sure that the demo
          > is inclusive.
          > My suggestion is that we make interop testing for these
          > scenarios the focus
          > for the SOAPBuilder's event.
          >
          > Thoughts?

          Great stuff!  The one thing I see that's really missing from this demo is any usage of SOAP headers, which I'd really like to see included.  Here's my suggestion:

          Have the Supplier interface require a simple form of authentication to use the service, namely a SOAP <someNS:authentication> header containing a simple "userID/password" structure.  Accesses without the header will return an athentication fault.  Then you add a "register" method, which does NOT require authentication:

          register(String userID) [RPC/Encoded]
          Returns a String (password)
          Possible Faults : "BadID" (already exists, etc)

          So Customers will first call register() to get a password for their desired userID, and then use that pair when talking to that Supplier in the future.

          What do y'all think?  My take on this is that SOAP headers are a pretty critical piece of the puzzle and header interop is something that we should be paying a little more attention to....

          --Glen


          -----------------------------------------------------------------
          This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

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



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        • Tony Hong
          Hi all, a couple of clarifications on the XML WebServices One idemo and its (possible) relation to SOAPBuilders. First, I just want to make it clear that the
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 20, 2002
            Hi all, a couple of clarifications on the XML WebServices One "idemo" and its (possible) relation to SOAPBuilders.
             
            First, I just want to make it clear that the idemo [1]  is being put on as an multi-vendor exhibition for the XML WebServices One conference [2] , and was NOT designed to be a foundation for a SOAPBuilders F2F (there seems to be some confusion on this point) .  It is a tradeshow demo that was originally meant to show that SOAP messaging *can* work across vendors, in a business scenario that (somewhat loosely) approximates real life.  It is not designed to show the state of the art in interop; rather its focus is on inclusion, which also means that it is currently very simple , as many have noticed :-). 
             
            On the other hand, SOAPBuilders has a different goal, which is to push that interop envelope. Because of these differing goals, for June, it might be better to NOT use the current "idemo" spec as the literal foundation for the next SOAPBuilders F2F, as it would actually be somewhat of a step backwords for SOAPBuilders.
             
            However - building on Sam's previous suggestion, the soapbuilders F2F could focus this June on a more advanced version of the same scenario (let's call it "v2") , with many of the features that have been suggested - use of headers, more emphasis on doc/literal, attachments, etc - , while the conference exhibits the "v1" version currently outlined at the idemo site, as planned. 
             
            Then the "v2" version becomes the foundation for the demo at the next conference in August, for those vendors who want to exhibit - at which point in time, the soapbuilders group is busy working at "v3".  Assuming that this interop demo becomes a permanent fixture in the show, the show can continually lag the F2F by one cycle.
             
            In general, this lag has the added benefit of giving the vendors/implementers time to get soapbulders-driven changes into production, by the time the demo is exhibited publicly.  
             
            Tony
             
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Rebecca Dias [mailto:rdias@...]
            Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:59 PM
            To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Fourth interop meeting

            +1 on the idemo

            What happened to SOAP with Attachments.  What about being able to easily send certain content types and have them processed?
             
             
            becky
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@...]
            Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 2:25 PM
            To: 'soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com'
            Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Fourth interop meeting


            > At the last interop meeting [1] we talked about having the
            > next meeting in
            > about three months in the bay area.  I can arrange to host
            > this at the IBM
            > Almaden facility [2].  How does this sound to people?

            +1

            > As far as timing goes, we talked about doing this type of
            > event roughly
            > quarterly.  That would put things at the end of May or early June.  It
            > turns out that there this an XML & Web Services One
            > conference [3] in San
            > Jose, on the 4th-7th of June, so if we made our get together
            > immediately
            > prior to this it could save a trip for people who desire to
            > participate in
            > both.

            +1

            > Finally, I see Tony has been busy working on specing out a
            > demo for the
            > conference [4].  He's worked hard to make sure that the demo
            > is inclusive.
            > My suggestion is that we make interop testing for these
            > scenarios the focus
            > for the SOAPBuilder's event.
            >
            > Thoughts?

            Great stuff!  The one thing I see that's really missing from this demo is any usage of SOAP headers, which I'd really like to see included.  Here's my suggestion:

            Have the Supplier interface require a simple form of authentication to use the service, namely a SOAP <someNS:authentication> header containing a simple "userID/password" structure.  Accesses without the header will return an athentication fault.  Then you add a "register" method, which does NOT require authentication:

            register(String userID) [RPC/Encoded]
            Returns a String (password)
            Possible Faults : "BadID" (already exists, etc)

            So Customers will first call register() to get a password for their desired userID, and then use that pair when talking to that Supplier in the future.

            What do y'all think?  My take on this is that SOAP headers are a pretty critical piece of the puzzle and header interop is something that we should be paying a little more attention to....

            --Glen


            -----------------------------------------------------------------
            This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

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



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


            -----------------------------------------------------------------
            This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

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



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          • philipdesautels
            +1 on the location and timing. I like the demo as a practical demonstration of interoperability. Scott Seeley on our team is heading up the effort. When we
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 25, 2002
              +1 on the location and timing.

              I like the demo as a practical demonstration of interoperability.
              Scott Seeley on our team is heading up the effort.

              When we left the last F2F meeting, we had plans for the next where
              we would get closure on WSDL testing and pick the next thing to test
              (DIME?).

              Rebecca, do you have those notes?

              I would like to see us move forward and get WSDL 1.1 as far along on
              interoperability across platforms as we can. I would also like to
              have – as an output of this F2F – a list of issues with WSDL 1.1
              that we could submit to the W3C WSDL WG.

              Thoughts?


              --- In soapbuilders@y..., "Tony Hong" <thong@x> wrote:
              > Hi all, a couple of clarifications on the XML WebServices
              One "idemo" and
              > its (possible) relation to SOAPBuilders.
              >
              > First, I just want to make it clear that the idemo [1] is being
              put on as
              > an multi-vendor exhibition for the XML WebServices One conference
              [2] , and
              > was NOT designed to be a foundation for a SOAPBuilders F2F (there
              seems to
              > be some confusion on this point) . It is a tradeshow demo that was
              > originally meant to show that SOAP messaging *can* work across
              vendors, in a
              > business scenario that (somewhat loosely) approximates real life.
              It is not
              > designed to show the state of the art in interop; rather its focus
              is on
              > inclusion, which also means that it is currently very simple , as
              many have
              > noticed :-).
              >
              > On the other hand, SOAPBuilders has a different goal, which is to
              push that
              > interop envelope. Because of these differing goals, for June, it
              might be
              > better to NOT use the current "idemo" spec as the literal
              foundation for the
              > next SOAPBuilders F2F, as it would actually be somewhat of a step
              backwords
              > for SOAPBuilders.
              >
              > However - building on Sam's previous suggestion, the soapbuilders
              F2F could
              > focus this June on a more advanced version of the same scenario
              (let's call
              > it "v2") , with many of the features that have been suggested -
              use of
              > headers, more emphasis on doc/literal, attachments, etc - , while
              the
              > conference exhibits the "v1" version currently outlined at the
              idemo site,
              > as planned.
              >
              > Then the "v2" version becomes the foundation for the demo at the
              next
              > conference in August, for those vendors who want to exhibit - at
              which point
              > in time, the soapbuilders group is busy working at "v3". Assuming
              that this
              > interop demo becomes a permanent fixture in the show, the show can
              > continually lag the F2F by one cycle.
              >
              > In general, this lag has the added benefit of giving the
              > vendors/implementers time to get soapbulders-driven changes into
              production,
              > by the time the demo is exhibited publicly.
              >
              > Tony
              >
              > [1] http://www.xmethods.net/idemo
              > [2] http://www.xmlconference.com/sanjose/
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Rebecca Dias [mailto:rdias@i...]
              > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:59 PM
              > To: soapbuilders@y...
              > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Fourth interop meeting
              >
              >
              > +1 on the idemo
              >
              > What happened to SOAP with Attachments. What about being able
              to easily
              > send certain content types and have them processed?
              >
              > http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/img/SoapBuildersInteropRoadmap.gif
              >
              > becky
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@m...]
              > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 2:25 PM
              > To: 'soapbuilders@y...'
              > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Fourth interop meeting
              >
              >
              >
              > > At the last interop meeting [1] we talked about having the
              > > next meeting in
              > > about three months in the bay area. I can arrange to host
              > > this at the IBM
              > > Almaden facility [2]. How does this sound to people?
              >
              > +1
              >
              > > As far as timing goes, we talked about doing this type of
              > > event roughly
              > > quarterly. That would put things at the end of May or early
              June. It
              > > turns out that there this an XML & Web Services One
              > > conference [3] in San
              > > Jose, on the 4th-7th of June, so if we made our get together
              > > immediately
              > > prior to this it could save a trip for people who desire to
              > > participate in
              > > both.
              >
              > +1
              >
              > > Finally, I see Tony has been busy working on specing out a
              > > demo for the
              > > conference [4]. He's worked hard to make sure that the demo
              > > is inclusive.
              > > My suggestion is that we make interop testing for these
              > > scenarios the focus
              > > for the SOAPBuilder's event.
              > >
              > > Thoughts?
              >
              > Great stuff! The one thing I see that's really missing from
              this demo
              > is any usage of SOAP headers, which I'd really like to see
              included. Here's
              > my suggestion:
              >
              > Have the Supplier interface require a simple form of
              authentication to
              > use the service, namely a SOAP <someNS:authentication> header
              containing a
              > simple "userID/password" structure. Accesses without the header
              will return
              > an athentication fault. Then you add a "register" method, which
              does NOT
              > require authentication:
              >
              > register(String userID) [RPC/Encoded]
              > Returns a String (password)
              > Possible Faults : "BadID" (already exists, etc)
              >
              > So Customers will first call register() to get a password for
              their
              > desired userID, and then use that pair when talking to that
              Supplier in the
              > future.
              >
              > What do y'all think? My take on this is that SOAP headers are
              a pretty
              > critical piece of the puzzle and header interop is something that
              we should
              > be paying a little more attention to....
              >
              > --Glen
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------------------------------------
              --
              > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
              discuss
              > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > ADVERTISEMENT
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > -----------------------------------------------------------------
              > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
              discuss
              > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
            • Scott Seely
              Minor typo, but the last name for Scott is spelled Seely. ... From: philipdesautels [mailto:phildes@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:10 AM To:
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 25, 2002
                Minor typo, but the last name for Scott is spelled Seely.


                -----Original Message-----
                From: philipdesautels [mailto:phildes@...]
                Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:10 AM
                To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [soapbuilders] Re: Fourth interop meeting

                +1 on the location and timing.

                I like the demo as a practical demonstration of interoperability.
                Scott Seeley on our team is heading up the effort.

                When we left the last F2F meeting, we had plans for the next where
                we would get closure on WSDL testing and pick the next thing to test
                (DIME?).

                Rebecca, do you have those notes?

                I would like to see us move forward and get WSDL 1.1 as far along on
                interoperability across platforms as we can. I would also like to
                have - as an output of this F2F - a list of issues with WSDL 1.1
                that we could submit to the W3C WSDL WG.

                Thoughts?


                --- In soapbuilders@y..., "Tony Hong" <thong@x> wrote:
                > Hi all, a couple of clarifications on the XML WebServices
                One "idemo" and
                > its (possible) relation to SOAPBuilders.
                >
                > First, I just want to make it clear that the idemo [1] is being
                put on as
                > an multi-vendor exhibition for the XML WebServices One conference
                [2] , and
                > was NOT designed to be a foundation for a SOAPBuilders F2F (there
                seems to
                > be some confusion on this point) . It is a tradeshow demo that was
                > originally meant to show that SOAP messaging *can* work across
                vendors, in a
                > business scenario that (somewhat loosely) approximates real life.
                It is not
                > designed to show the state of the art in interop; rather its focus
                is on
                > inclusion, which also means that it is currently very simple , as
                many have
                > noticed :-).
                >
                > On the other hand, SOAPBuilders has a different goal, which is to
                push that
                > interop envelope. Because of these differing goals, for June, it
                might be
                > better to NOT use the current "idemo" spec as the literal
                foundation for the
                > next SOAPBuilders F2F, as it would actually be somewhat of a step
                backwords
                > for SOAPBuilders.
                >
                > However - building on Sam's previous suggestion, the soapbuilders
                F2F could
                > focus this June on a more advanced version of the same scenario
                (let's call
                > it "v2") , with many of the features that have been suggested -
                use of
                > headers, more emphasis on doc/literal, attachments, etc - , while
                the
                > conference exhibits the "v1" version currently outlined at the
                idemo site,
                > as planned.
                >
                > Then the "v2" version becomes the foundation for the demo at the
                next
                > conference in August, for those vendors who want to exhibit - at
                which point
                > in time, the soapbuilders group is busy working at "v3". Assuming
                that this
                > interop demo becomes a permanent fixture in the show, the show can
                > continually lag the F2F by one cycle.
                >
                > In general, this lag has the added benefit of giving the
                > vendors/implementers time to get soapbulders-driven changes into
                production,
                > by the time the demo is exhibited publicly.
                >
                > Tony
                >
                > [1] http://www.xmethods.net/idemo
                > [2] http://www.xmlconference.com/sanjose/
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Rebecca Dias [mailto:rdias@i...]
                > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:59 PM
                > To: soapbuilders@y...
                > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Fourth interop meeting
                >
                >
                > +1 on the idemo
                >
                > What happened to SOAP with Attachments. What about being able
                to easily
                > send certain content types and have them processed?
                >
                > http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/img/SoapBuildersInteropRoadmap.gif
                >
                > becky
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@m...]
                > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 2:25 PM
                > To: 'soapbuilders@y...'
                > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Fourth interop meeting
                >
                >
                >
                > > At the last interop meeting [1] we talked about having the
                > > next meeting in
                > > about three months in the bay area. I can arrange to host
                > > this at the IBM
                > > Almaden facility [2]. How does this sound to people?
                >
                > +1
                >
                > > As far as timing goes, we talked about doing this type of
                > > event roughly
                > > quarterly. That would put things at the end of May or early
                June. It
                > > turns out that there this an XML & Web Services One
                > > conference [3] in San
                > > Jose, on the 4th-7th of June, so if we made our get together
                > > immediately
                > > prior to this it could save a trip for people who desire to
                > > participate in
                > > both.
                >
                > +1
                >
                > > Finally, I see Tony has been busy working on specing out a
                > > demo for the
                > > conference [4]. He's worked hard to make sure that the demo
                > > is inclusive.
                > > My suggestion is that we make interop testing for these
                > > scenarios the focus
                > > for the SOAPBuilder's event.
                > >
                > > Thoughts?
                >
                > Great stuff! The one thing I see that's really missing from
                this demo
                > is any usage of SOAP headers, which I'd really like to see
                included. Here's
                > my suggestion:
                >
                > Have the Supplier interface require a simple form of
                authentication to
                > use the service, namely a SOAP <someNS:authentication> header
                containing a
                > simple "userID/password" structure. Accesses without the header
                will return
                > an athentication fault. Then you add a "register" method, which
                does NOT
                > require authentication:
                >
                > register(String userID) [RPC/Encoded]
                > Returns a String (password)
                > Possible Faults : "BadID" (already exists, etc)
                >
                > So Customers will first call register() to get a password for
                their
                > desired userID, and then use that pair when talking to that
                Supplier in the
                > future.
                >
                > What do y'all think? My take on this is that SOAP headers are
                a pretty
                > critical piece of the puzzle and header interop is something that
                we should
                > be paying a little more attention to....
                >
                > --Glen
                >
                >
                > ---------------------------------------------------------------
                --
                > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
                discuss
                > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                Service.
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                > ADVERTISEMENT
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
                discuss
                > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                Service.



                -----------------------------------------------------------------
                This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
                implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.

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



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • Sam Ruby
                OK, we are now four weeks away from the fourth interop meeting. For catering needs, I need a head count. So if you want to eat, let me know. Either to the
                Message 7 of 12 , May 6, 2002
                  OK, we are now four weeks away from the fourth interop meeting. For
                  catering needs, I need a head count. So if you want to eat, let me know.
                  Either to the list or privately.

                  The original invite is at [1].

                  We also need consensus on the agenda. My suggestions of the idemo and to
                  provide input to WS-I seemed to go over like lead baloons. My suggestion
                  on hashtable and dataset resonated a bit more, but not much.

                  Here's another thought: what should a toolkit do with additional parameters
                  that are sent to it? Some of my thoughts are captured at [2].

                  Or, we could talk about DIME. ;-)

                  - Sam Ruby

                  [1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/7380
                  [2] http://radio.weblogs.com/0101679/stories/2002/03/15/copingWithChange.html
                • Chester Chen
                  Hi, Is there an C soap server available ? One of our product is using WebObject 4.5 objective-C. Since WebObject uses really old version of gcc (, the
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 6, 2002
                    Hi,
                    Is there an C soap server available ?

                    One of our product is using WebObject 4.5 objective-C.

                    Since WebObject uses really old version of gcc (, the
                    compiler does not work with many new features offerred
                    by C++. So we are wondering if there is an soap
                    server that is written in C that can be used in
                    WebObjects with Objective C.
                    Thanks.

                    Chester

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                    http://health.yahoo.com
                  • Paul Kulchenko
                    Hi, Chester! Check this link: http://soaplite.com/#TOOLKITS You should find several C/C++ toolkits there. I m not sure how easy it will be to use it with
                    Message 9 of 12 , May 6, 2002
                      Hi, Chester!

                      Check this link: http://soaplite.com/#TOOLKITS
                      You should find several C/C++ toolkits there. I'm not sure how easy
                      it will be to use it with Objective C.

                      Best wishes, Paul.

                      --- Chester Chen <chesterxgchen@...> wrote:
                      > Hi,
                      > Is there an C soap server available ?
                      >
                      > One of our product is using WebObject 4.5 objective-C.
                      >
                      > Since WebObject uses really old version of gcc (, the
                      > compiler does not work with many new features offerred
                      > by C++. So we are wondering if there is an soap
                      > server that is written in C that can be used in
                      > WebObjects with Objective C.
                      > Thanks.
                      >
                      > Chester
                      >
                      > __________________________________________________
                      > Do You Yahoo!?
                      > Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                      > http://health.yahoo.com
                      >
                      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      >
                      > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                      > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
                      > discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay
                      > on-topic.
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                      http://health.yahoo.com
                    • Chester Chen
                      Paul, Thanks. I will check it out. Chester ... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and
                      Message 10 of 12 , May 6, 2002
                        Paul,
                        Thanks. I will check it out.
                        Chester
                        --- Paul Kulchenko <paulclinger@...> wrote:
                        > Hi, Chester!
                        >
                        > Check this link: http://soaplite.com/#TOOLKITS
                        > You should find several C/C++ toolkits there. I'm
                        > not sure how easy
                        > it will be to use it with Objective C.
                        >
                        > Best wishes, Paul.
                        >
                        > --- Chester Chen <chesterxgchen@...> wrote:
                        > > Hi,
                        > > Is there an C soap server available ?
                        > >
                        > > One of our product is using WebObject 4.5
                        > objective-C.
                        > >
                        > > Since WebObject uses really old version of gcc (,
                        > the
                        > > compiler does not work with many new features
                        > offerred
                        > > by C++. So we are wondering if there is an soap
                        > > server that is written in C that can be used in
                        > > WebObjects with Objective C.
                        > > Thanks.
                        > >
                        > > Chester
                        > >
                        > > __________________________________________________
                        > > Do You Yahoo!?
                        > > Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                        > > http://health.yahoo.com
                        > >
                        > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        > > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP
                        > implementations to
                        > > discuss implementation and interoperability
                        > issues. Please stay
                        > > on-topic.
                        > >
                        > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > __________________________________________________
                        > Do You Yahoo!?
                        > Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                        > http://health.yahoo.com
                        >


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                        http://health.yahoo.com
                      • Robert van Engelen
                        ... The gSOAP toolkit is suitable for both (pure) C and C++ applications. If your environment accepts C code, then it might be worth a try. The package
                        Message 11 of 12 , May 7, 2002
                          > Is there an C soap server available ?

                          The gSOAP toolkit is suitable for both (pure) C and C++ applications. If your
                          environment accepts C code, then it might be worth a try. The package includes
                          a number of single-threaded, multi-threaded, and CGI-based SOAP servers.

                          Hope this helps.

                          - Cheers, Robert
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.