From: | mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
Cc: | cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL and SOAP, suggestions? |
Date: | 2003-04-03 12:38:53 |
Message-ID: | 3E8C2B5D.1030704@mohawksoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing wrote:
>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
>
Off the top of my head, no, but I bet it is a goole away. If you know
any good links, I'd love to know. I have been working off the W3C spec.
>
>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)
>
I have been planning to "test" the whole thing with a few .NET
applications. I am currently using expat to parse the output to ensure
that it all works correcty.
>
>
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | cbbrowne | 2003-04-03 12:44:50 | Re: PostgreSQL and SOAP, suggestions? |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-04-03 12:25:40 | Re: contrib and licensing |