From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL and SOAP, suggestions? |
Date: | 2003-04-03 08:20:32 |
Message-ID: | 1049358031.2719.35.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com kirjutas N, 03.04.2003 kell 02:01:
> mlw wrote:
> > I think you are interpreting the spec a bit too restrictively. The
> > syntax is fairly rigid, but the spec has a great degree of flexibility.
> > I agree that, syntactically, it must work through a parser, but there is
> > lots of room to be flexible.
>
> This is /exactly/ the standard problem with SOAP.
>
> There is enough "flexibility" that there are differing approaches
> associated, generally speaking, with "IBM versus Microsoft" whereby it's
> easy to generate SOAP requests that work fine with one that break with
> the other.
Do you know of some:
a) standard conformance tests
b) recommended best practices for being compatible with all mainstream
implementations (I'd guess a good approach would be to generate very
strictly conformant code but accept all that you can, even if against
pedantic reading of the spec)
-----------------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | opensource | 2003-04-03 09:04:28 | Re: Dangling backends on win32 7.2.1 port (peerdirect). |
Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2003-04-03 05:35:15 | Re: contrib and licensing |