Return-Path: 
 <axis-dev-return-5664-apmail-xml-axis-dev-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-axis-dev-archive@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 31920 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2002 16:55:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
list-help: <mailto:axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:axis-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 31906 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2002 16:55:04 -0000
From: Simon Fell <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>
To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: new 4s4c interop results
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:54:10 -0800
Message-ID: <1aqt4ugpcu6j7fvgd0h6n935ao8k6midcs@4ax.com>
References: <OF35974103.C87F3DED-ON85256B4A.005A0DCD@raleigh.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF35974103.C87F3DED-ON85256B4A.005A0DCD@raleigh.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Hops: 1
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:28:55 -0500, in soap you wrote:

>Simon Fell wrote:
>>
>> Sam, do you have wire dumps for these two i can take a look at ?
>
>http://www.apache.org/~rubys/ApacheClientInterop.html#1-axis
>
>Hint: push page down.  ;-)

doh !. thanks.

for echoIntegerArray, it looks like i send back an array of size 1,
but no values
<result E:arrayType=3D'b:int[1]'></result> which i would imagine causes
the problem, I'll have to look into that one, i can't even imagine how
that happens at this point.

for structArray, i send back an arrayType=3D"xsd:anyType[x]" which I'm
guessing causes the problem, this is an issue with a number of
toolkits and something i need to fix.

>Note: since you seem to have installed Axis yourself, you have =
everything
>you need to reproduce this test.  Look in the java/samples/echo =
directory.

cool.

>> There seems to be a split in the web services folks, those that
>> embrace the programming language integration, and believe in type
>> promotions / conversions, and those that think the WSDL contract is
>> the last word, and can't be deviated from at all. In this particular
>> case I'm fine with it being considered a failure, as i do want to have
>> it return a hexBinary response. There are a bunch of similar cases,
>> like xsd:base64Binary vs soap-enc:base64, that aren't as clear cut.
>
>And I'm quite willing to stradle the fence on this issue.  As a general
>rule, my belief is that we should be strictly conforming in what we =
send,
>and liberal in what we accept.  So marking this as a failure is =
"correct".
>But accepting the response (given that the intent is unabiguous in this
>case) is _better_.
>
>- Sam Ruby

BTW, I'm still way off releasing the 2.0 version of 4s4c, is there any
chance you can test both the new 2.0 endpoint, and also released 4s4c
endpoint ? [ wsdl is http://www.pocketsoap.com/services/ilab.wsdl
endpoint is http://soap.4s4c.com/ilab/soap.asp ]=20

Cheers
Simon