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

Re: [soaplite] State of the SOAP

Expand Messages
  • Byrne Reese
    And a slightly edited version has been posted to the SOAP::Lite blog: http://www.soaplite.com/2007/01/state_of_the_so.html
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 16, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      And a slightly edited version has been posted to the SOAP::Lite blog:

      http://www.soaplite.com/2007/01/state_of_the_so.html

      Chris McMahon wrote:
      > I posted this to perlmonks:
      > http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=594790
      >
      >
      > On 1/15/07, *Byrne Reese* < byrne@...
      > <mailto:byrne@...>> wrote:
      >
      > I do actively follow the group. I rarely have time to respond however
      > between work, a kid, and a number of other projects I am actively
      > engaged in.
      >
      > I tend to develop SOAP::Lite in bursts when need and opportunity
      > converge and I have a god chunk of time to work with.
      >
      > As with any open source project, it is always looking for help and
      > looking for members from the community to take the initiative to
      > contribute (some have, and I should go back and incorporate some of
      > their patches).
      >
      > I could write a State of the SOAP address to give the community a
      > sense
      > of what's up... if I did, it would go something like this:
      >
      > The SOAP protocol is still in wide use today as it has become
      > native to
      > so many development platforms.SOAP itself has also become an
      > incredibly
      > stable protocol. The WS-* Wars of the early millenium seem to have
      > died
      > down, and the few truly useful extensions to SOAP have been
      > selected by
      > the market.
      >
      > Most SOAP toolkits as well have stablized along with the protocol.
      > Relatively speaking, the status of this SOAP toolkit is fair to good.
      >
      > SOAP::Lite works with the majority of endpoints, but has a number of
      > interoperability issues with more modern implementations of SOAP
      > servers
      > and clients. The task of keeping SOAP::Lite up to date is a difficult
      > one. The source code is notoriously complex, a mark of the ingenious
      > Paul who created SOAP:Lite, and as a result baffles most
      > inexperienced
      > Perl programmers, and indeed may even frighten them off. I myself am
      > given the highest respect in my office for signing up to maintain the
      > module - I work with some of the brightest and most experienced Perl
      > programmers in the industry and they all look at SOAP::Lite in awe.
      >
      > But I am not trying to inflate my ego, I am trying to set the
      > stage for
      > what should be next for Perl's only SOAP toolkit.
      >
      > If SOAP::Lite as a project is to attract more contributing
      > authors, it
      > is essential that the SOAP::Lite code base become easier to work
      > with.
      > SOAP::Lite could benefit a great deal from shedding a lot of the code
      > written before the protocol had really matured, before the era of the
      > WS-i, before a time where other toolkits and servers had agreed
      > upon and
      > embraced a set of best practices. SOAP::Lite should shift to become
      > document-driven, as opposed to RPC driven.
      >
      > SOAP::Lite needs a re-write. SOAP::Lite needs to live up to its
      > name of
      > "Lite." SOAP::Lite should be built from the ground up to conform
      > to the
      > WS-i's requirements. It should be built first and foremost around a
      > wicked WSDL parser and engine. It should be made more modular so that
      > its components can be more easily swapped out for newer and better
      > implementations without disrupting users and developers. It should
      > take
      > advantage of the number of perl modules that have evolved since
      > SOAP::Lite was conceived to reduce code complexity and obscurity.
      >
      > SOAP::Lite needs your help. SOAP::Lite needs a group of 2-3
      > passionate
      > people to take a fresh look at this critical toolkit for Perl
      > developers
      > and to usher into a new age of utilization, community growth,
      > usage, and
      > utility.
      >
      > Undertaking a project like this is not a trivial task. It requires
      > months and months of dedicated time and attention. And then it
      > must also
      > be supported and maintained.
      >
      > This project would not start from ground zero. There is a vision
      > and a
      > plethora of tried and true code already within SOAP::Lite that
      > shouldn't
      > be needlessly thrown away. What we endeavor to do is make SOAP::Lite
      > easier to grok and easier to work with. What we hope to create is
      > a new
      > module, called SOAP::Easy.
      >
      > Byrne Reese
      > Lead Developer and Maintainer, SOAP::Lite
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Mark Wilkinson
      Hi all, Quick question - should the code fragment below set the User Agent HTTP header to be myApp when called by SOAP::Lite? @soapargs = ( $url, proxy = [
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 25, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi all,

        Quick question - should the code fragment below set the User Agent HTTP
        header to be "myApp" when called by SOAP::Lite?

        @soapargs = ( $url, proxy => [ 'http' => $proxy ], user_agent => "myApp" );
        SOAP::Lite->proxy(@soapargs)->uri($uri)->on_fault(...);

        It isn't working for me, but it may be a bug elsewhere in my code.

        Any advice appreciated.

        Thanks!

        Mark
      • Mark Wilkinson
        Hi all, Is anyone in the SOAP::Lite community dealing with the non-working version that has been in CPAN for the past few months?
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 5, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi all,

          Is anyone in the SOAP::Lite community dealing with the non-working version
          that has been in CPAN for the past few months?

          http://beta.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2006/08/msg343399.html

          I'm getting the exact same error message with failed tests, and I need to
          upgrade my production server... is it safe to ignore these failed tests,
          or are they serious?

          Please advise,

          Mark
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.