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

Re: [soapbuilders] The Interop tests and BDG (was : some questions/observations re: BDG)

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    Sam! That s why I mentioned it here. So there would be a chance for pushback. An alternate: Keith could comment on our work here on the mail list. About a F2F,
    Message 1 of 48 , Mar 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Sam!

      That's why I mentioned it here. So there would be a chance for pushback.

      An alternate: Keith could comment on our work here on the mail list.

      About a F2F, I run a very small company and as you see I already work 7-day
      weeks, and there's no way I could make it to NC in April. There's too much
      else going on, and I'm going to have such a huge pile of worked backed up as
      it is after the attention I've put into this for the last xxx weeks.

      Re your comments about the BDG, I find this so confusing.

      Let me put it this way.

      I have limited resources and totally don't understand what the other stuff
      in SOAP 1.1 is for.

      I have deployed apps that I want to interop with your work and everyone
      else's. (The Two-Way-Web.)

      I want my users to have choice. To me this is an ethical question. I've
      promised not to lock them in. And as I see it, the more choice they have the
      better.

      I want interop because my tools and runtimes are not best in every
      situation. I want choice too. I run servers. I have thousands of users. I
      want that to grow.

      I want a chance to convert my competitors' users to my tools, so I want to
      be able to offer equivalent functioanlity, where appropriate.

      Assume even though it not make sense to you that my company *can not*
      support the full SOAP 1.1 spec.

      OK, armed with all this data, what's the right thing for us to do?

      Dave


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@...>
      To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 6:13 PM
      Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] The Interop tests and BDG (was : some
      questions/observations re: BDG)


      > Dave Winer wrote:
      > >
      > > 3. I just sent an email to Keith suggesting that we have a phone talk.
      >
      > Grrrr...
      >
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/200
      >
      > Boy that feels good to get off my chest.
      >
      > Can I make a suggestion? How about I arrange a teleconference for 10 am
      > PDT / 1 pm EDT on Monday, April 2nd? I do believe that we could all
      > benefit from a higher bandwidth and synchronous conversation than e-mail
      > permits. And I still do believe that a face-to-face would be productive.
      > I still have a large room reserved for April 19th and 20th...and will even
      > spring for lunch... ;-)
      >
      > - Sam Ruby
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Fredrik Lundh
      ... use David Gay s I/O libraries (http://netlib.bell-labs.com/netlib/fp/). if that s not possible, make sure you write out floating point values with enough
      Message 48 of 48 , Apr 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        jake wrote:

        > Do you have any suggestions about how we should deal with this issue, in
        > terms of real-world interop?

        use David Gay's I/O libraries (http://netlib.bell-labs.com/netlib/fp/).

        if that's not possible, make sure you write out floating point values
        with enough precision (17 digits for doubles, 9 for floats). also doc-
        ument that your implementation may not be fully compliant wrt. FP
        roundtripping.

        > Should an implementation ignore FP errors beyond a certain precision?

        imo, that's up to the application, not the stack - but test code that
        checks floating point values needs to be aware of this.

        > Should it simply fault, unless IEEE 754 compliance is known for certain?

        you mean XSD schema compliance -- the schema spec goes beyond
        IEEE 754 in this case. I'm pretty sure all modern C libraries comply
        with IEEE 754, but very few comply with the schema spec.

        > (I think not, since as you point out, many people won't have any easy
        > way to know if their implementation is compliant or not.)

        agreed.

        Cheers /F
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.