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

Support for the BDG

Expand Messages
  • Eric Kidd
    The BDG is short, sweet, and easy to implement. I like it. Therefore, as promised, I plan to put SOAP BDG support on the top of my TODO list for xmlrpc-c.
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      The BDG is short, sweet, and easy to implement. I like it.

      Therefore, as promised, I plan to put SOAP BDG support on the top of my
      TODO list for xmlrpc-c. This means that users of xmlrpc-c should be able
      to support SOAP BDG by changing a few lines of code.

      Two notes:

      1) I have no plans to support all of SOAP 1.1.

      2) If the BDG conflicts with established SOAP, XML or Unicode standards,
      I will stick with those standards and ignore the BDG. I am only aware
      of two such cases at the moment; see my earlier post on
      character-encodings.

      Is anyone making a list of SOAP implementations planning to support the
      BDG?

      Many thanks to everyone who has worked on the BDG!

      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/
    • Dave Winer
      Eric, this is great news. To answer your question, no one, as far as I know, has a list of pledges to interop at the BDG level. I think your caveats are
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 31, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Eric, this is great news.

        To answer your question, no one, as far as I know, has a list of pledges to
        interop at the BDG level.

        I think your caveats are something that UserLand would agree with as well.
        It gives us a strong sense that the spec is frozen, yet at the same time
        leaves the door open for mistake correction.

        As long as we have a way to communicate among ourselves, we have a chance of
        keeping this level active and moving. A special site not edited by the
        authors of the spec seems like a good way to help assure that.

        Would you volunteer to be the keeper-of-the-pledge-list?

        Dave

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Eric Kidd" <eric.kidd@...>
        To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 7:44 AM
        Subject: [soapbuilders] Support for the BDG


        > The BDG is short, sweet, and easy to implement. I like it.
        >
        > Therefore, as promised, I plan to put SOAP BDG support on the top of my
        > TODO list for xmlrpc-c. This means that users of xmlrpc-c should be able
        > to support SOAP BDG by changing a few lines of code.
        >
        > Two notes:
        >
        > 1) I have no plans to support all of SOAP 1.1.
        >
        > 2) If the BDG conflicts with established SOAP, XML or Unicode standards,
        > I will stick with those standards and ignore the BDG. I am only
        aware
        > of two such cases at the moment; see my earlier post on
        > character-encodings.
        >
        > Is anyone making a list of SOAP implementations planning to support the
        > BDG?
        >
        > Many thanks to everyone who has worked on the BDG!
        >
        > 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/
        >
        >
        > 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/
        >
        >
      • Eric Kidd
        ... OK. At a minimum, I d like SOAP BDG to be consistent, at least in theory, with the following standards: HTTP XML 1.0 XML Namespaces SOAP 1.1 Unicode (and
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 31, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 07:47:01AM -0800, Dave Winer wrote:
          > I think your caveats are something that UserLand would agree with as well.
          > It gives us a strong sense that the spec is frozen, yet at the same time
          > leaves the door open for mistake correction.

          OK. At a minimum, I'd like SOAP BDG to be consistent, at least in theory,
          with the following standards:

          HTTP
          XML 1.0
          XML Namespaces
          SOAP 1.1
          Unicode (and the annex) / ISO-10646 / UTF-8
          RFC 2376 (rules for character encodings with HTTP & XML)

          Of course, other standards may be relevant, but these are the biggies.

          If SOAP BDG *conflicts* with any of these standards, it's a bug (IMHO). If
          it specifies a *subset* of one of these standards, it's OK. Is this your
          intent?

          > As long as we have a way to communicate among ourselves, we have a chance of
          > keeping this level active and moving. A special site not edited by the
          > authors of the spec seems like a good way to help assure that.
          >
          > Would you volunteer to be the keeper-of-the-pledge-list?

          I will happily host this, or any other information about SOAP BDG, starting
          on Monday. If you want it sooner, somebody else will need to
          volunteer.

          Thank you for your work!

          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/
        • Dave Winer
          ... If it specifies a *subset* of one of these standards, it s OK. Is this your intent? Yes, and drop the imho part. We re defining an easy path through the
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 31, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            >>If SOAP BDG *conflicts* with any of these standards, it's a bug (IMHO).
            If it specifies a *subset* of one of these standards, it's OK. Is this your
            intent?

            Yes, and drop the imho part. We're defining an easy path through the
            standards, not trying to replace or obfuscate the standards.

            About the list of pledges, thanks for volunteering. I'd like to include in
            the soapware.org directory if possible.

            BTW, it's worth mentioning that the soapware.org directory can be included
            in other directories. It's available in OPML as well.

            http://www.soapware.org/discuss/reader$4.opml

            Some days I think if only the IBM/Microsoft guys would 2click on that,
            they'd find that there's a simple XML format that can do wonderful things to
            simplify all the work they're doing on aggregators and metadata, and it's
            easy to write user-oriented authoring tools (we have one). UDDI could be a
            four-screen spec too. Maybe we'll go there next. ;->

            To Josh, there's a philosophy here. It's not Microsoft's philosophy, but
            with the power of your developers, if we could get you guys to come out and
            play openly, you could tap into the experience we have and vice versa. This
            is the argument we've been having. Josh reads our specs, he knows what we're
            doing, so it's puzzling to me that he would impugn evil intent. I work so
            openly, the ideas just must be strange. How could I be willing to give them
            something for free without somehow poisoning them?

            Dave
          • Rich Salz
            ... For what it s worth ... we re building a commercial product, building security net services. We re neither general infrastructure nor open source.
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 31, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              > About the list of pledges

              For what it's worth ... we're building a commercial product, building
              security net services. We're neither general infrastructure nor open
              source. Having said that, our interfaces our SOAP over HTTP and
              HTTP/SSL, and we intend to comply with the BDG soap profile. While some
              folks (myself included) have pointed out the risks in this effort --
              frankly, I still don't see the need to close the spec in a few hours --
              overall it seems like a good thing. Congrats.
              /r$
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.