Dear valued friend in the SOAP 1.1 community.. I've spent the last month talking with many implementors of SOAP 1.1. We all seem to want interop, and some have...
Dave Winer
dave@...
Mar 19, 2001 11:11 pm
2
I posted a note to the Developmentor SOAP list, which I am a member of. I also started a new mail list which you all have been invited to join. ...
Dave Winer
dave@...
Mar 19, 2001 11:57 pm
3
... Stage two The second stage will begin with a posting of pairs of implementations chosen at random. Each pair will attain interop, and report the result...
Tony Hong
thong@...
Mar 20, 2001 12:43 am
4
... If the distinction is trivial, flip a coin. If it's substantial, we discuss. How does that sound? Dave ... From: "Tony Hong" <thong@...> To:...
Dave Winer
dave@...
Mar 20, 2001 12:46 am
5
OK... so, if I understand correctly, the "standard" reference model converges to a final state based on a discussion stream that resolves each point on a case...
Tony Hong
thong@...
Mar 20, 2001 12:55 am
6
Yes, exactly. And the three-person test suite committee can anticipate such problems, but it's probably better to specify the interfaces without specifying the...
Dave Winer
dave@...
Mar 20, 2001 1:00 am
7
Oh, and as each instance turns up a new decision - that decision must "ripple" through all of the other implementations. In the example below, the decision of...
Tony Hong
thong@...
Mar 20, 2001 1:00 am
8
The obvious answer is that there is something that exercises full coverage of the SOAP spec. However i'm not aware of a single implementation that provides a...
Simon Fell
simon@...
Mar 20, 2001 1:47 am
9
I think for issues without a clear resolution, there should be some quick consensus building within the soapbuilders and interopathon aliases. In pratice,...
Keith Ballinger
keithba@...
Mar 20, 2001 2:02 am
10
Hi Simon, That's definitely the be-all-end-all answer, but as you imply, it doesn't seem achievable in the short term. My guess is that a good initial set for...
Tony Hong
thong@...
Mar 20, 2001 2:10 am
11
This sounds right to me. The SOAP spec itself says that to be a SOAP implementation you must: * use a body, envelope, and well formed XML * set SOAPAction over...
Keith Ballinger
keithba@...
Mar 20, 2001 2:25 am
12
In my role of designated hardass and unilateral assigner of tasks, I have asked Paul Kulchenko to act as the registrar for the Interopathon for SOAP 1.1 and he...
Dave Winer
dave@...
Mar 20, 2001 2:27 am
13
It seems that the game may need a full testing plan. Also, it may be advisable to implement a bug/error database-implementation so everyone can utilize this...
W. Matthew Long
mlong@...
Mar 20, 2001 3:28 am
14
... +1, though we should make sure to have a good way of tracking this stuff, and I'll volunteer to take responsibility to push the resolutions/discussions...
Glen Daniels
gdaniels@...
Mar 20, 2001 4:03 am
15
inline ... From: Glen Daniels Sent: Mon 3/19/2001 8:03 PM To: Keith Ballinger; thong@...; interopathon@yahoogroups.com; UserLand-Internal; Paul...
Keith Ballinger
keithba@...
Mar 20, 2001 4:31 am
16
Guys, I'm not interested in going to the W3C. I think you guys are going to do it the way you want to, no matter what, so you might as well draft your own...
Dave Winer
dave@...
Mar 20, 2001 4:41 am
17
Whoa. I'm hoping that you didn't misunderstand my comment to mean that the interop testing would in any way be gated by or bound to the W3C - I was just noting...
Glen Daniels
gdaniels@...
Mar 20, 2001 4:47 am
18
Two simple questions. 1. How long has it been since the 1.1 spec came out? 2. Why don't we have interop now? Actually a third. 3. Would it be possible for...
Dave Winer
dave@...
Mar 20, 2001 4:59 am
19
Maybe I should explain some more, although I have explained some of this in private messages earlier today, I want to get it into the archives. 1....
Dave Winer
dave@...
Mar 20, 2001 5:42 am
20
Hi all, Can we take into account when drawing up the interop pairs that some of the implementations may be either client-only or server-only? It may not be an...
Chris Dix
cdix@...
Mar 20, 2001 5:51 am
21
Hi, Chris! Yes, I'm aware of that. Actually full list of implementations we have has this information (Client/Server/Full) and it seems to be complete and up...
Paul Kulchenko
paulclinger@...
Mar 20, 2001 6:09 am
22
I just joined this yesterday, and I don't know anything about your history with MS (it sounds interesting though 8-), but to me some of the statements you made...
dug@...
Mar 20, 2001 2:19 pm
23
Allow to me say that I can see nothing wrong with Dave Winer's concept of an interopathon. These kinds of concepts not only promote the protocol and improve...
Matt Long
mlong@...
Mar 20, 2001 3:38 pm
24
Hmmm, you don't see anything wrong with the plan, but you rewrote it anyway. ;-> I could see this coming, what a mess. I don't want to be god, but if there's ...
Dave Winer
dave@...
Mar 20, 2001 3:51 pm
25
Dave, I think your goals are good - we all want to interop with each other - it was just the restrictive/authoritative tone of the note that rubbed me the...
Doug Davis
dug@...
Mar 20, 2001 3:57 pm
26
Exactly right, people from MS and Apache shouldn't have any more say than anyone else. How do you make that happen? Now about God-ness, it does sound harsh to...
Dave Winer
dave@...
Mar 20, 2001 3:59 pm
27
Doug, I totally do *not* support what you guys did last week. I don't think a melding of the minds is going to happen. Serial interop is bad politics esp when...
Dave Winer
dave@...
Mar 20, 2001 4:01 pm
28
Don't see why you call it "serial interop". What we talked about doing is setting up a place where everyone/anyone can test their interoperability with anyone...
Doug Davis
dug@...
Mar 20, 2001 4:11 pm
29
I like to have structure so we don't all gravitate to the Microsoft table, and so it's open to people who can't travel. Have you read the plan? If not, please...
Dave Winer
dave@...
Mar 20, 2001 4:21 pm
30
Hi folks! This is a quick writeup of an idea that a bunch of folks had last week while discussing interoperability demos and tests. It's a pretty simple...
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
