Re: [soapbuilders] The Interop tests and BDG (was : some questions/observations re: BDG)
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
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?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@...>
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.
> 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:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- jake wrote:
> Do you have any suggestions about how we should deal with this issue, inuse David Gay's I/O libraries (http://netlib.bell-labs.com/netlib/fp/).
> terms of real-world interop?
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
> 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 easyagreed.
> way to know if their implementation is compliant or not.)