Samisa, What's the point in churning out a release with known bad code that does not even work with well known public API's?. May be if we did a full interop testing (ALL soap builder's Interop tests against whitemesa server and others and NOT our server) we would have found stuff earlier. Forget that, just look at the # of times people have reported this problem with Google Search: - 2004-05-08 : http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-c-user&m=108402411031604&w=2 - 2004-05-24 : http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-c-dev&m=108541463028145&w=2 - 2004-11-06 : http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-c-user&m=109974124030322&w=2 - 2005-02-26 : http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-c-user&m=110939108423825&w=2
I know we should "Release Early and Release Often", but this is crossing the line :( -- dims On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:32:05 +0000, Samisa Abeysinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dims, > I had a look into how the problem could be fixed for Goole API. > As we discussed in the other thread, this is a problem with the > "assumtion" on the XML element ordering. Now to fix this, we have to > fix SoapDeSerializer class (earlier I thought it is the parser, but it > happens to be SoapSeSerializer). We have to buffer the AnyElement > returned by the parser at the SoapDeSerializer level if the > m_pchNameOrValue not what is requested by the generated code and go on > looking for next nodes. This obviously is a major change, looking at > the number of methids using the parser next() methid in > SoapDeSerializer. And ofcource, I *think* this would work, but we have > to verify. It will take couple of days to update the code. However it > will take much more time to test and fix for side effects. > May be we could have looked into public APIs like these earlier. > However, if we are to fix this and release, it will take another month > or so for the code to stabilize. And those who want to use 1.5 for > client engagements, would not like idea of changing a sensitive class > as SoapDeSerializer at this moment. > What if we do release 1.5 as it is and include this to 1.6? > Thanks, > Samisa... > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:33:01 -0500, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > John, > > > > I have been playing with the code...I was thinking what is the use of > > making a release if people can't use it to access public web services > > like Amazon, Google, TerraService and eBay? Can we spend some time to > > make our code robust and useful in the real world out-of-the-box? (I > > can definitely confirm that the code genned out of the box does not > > work with Google Search API for starters) > > > > Thanks, > > dims > > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:29:04 +0000, John Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I think we should go for a 1.5 release which is client biased next wk. > > > > > > The server will still work but may have issues. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Carsten Blecken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > 22/03/2005 18:15 > > > > > > Please respond to > > > "Apache AXIS C Developers List" > > > > > > > > > To "Apache AXIS C Developers List" <[email protected]> > > > > > > cc > > > > > > Subject RE: 1.5 Release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > sorry for the late reply. Maybe a beta could help to get the > > > client side improvements out. Certainly worth considering, > > > IMO. > > > > > > It is not that the server side is not important, but I do have > > > some concerns about the current server side approach (There is an > > > interesting writeup on > > > http://fremantle.org/paul/Web_Services_Server_options_for_Axis_C.html) > > > and we might need to address the server side in a separate > > > release. > > > > > > Carsten > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Samisa Abeysinghe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:14 AM > > > To: Apache AXIS C Developers List > > > Subject: Re: 1.5 Release > > > > > > > > > Hi Sanjaya, > > > We have not attended server side as such. However, many > > > fixes to > > > serialization/de-serialization in general and code generation has solved > > > many problem which were generic to both sides. > > > > > > We have done some level of testing with C++ server > > > against > > > C++ clients > > > and about 65% of the tests pass. Some of the failing ones are due to > > > Skeleton implementation errors. So I would rather say that the code base > > > is fairly stable. > > > I have been able to fix the simple axis server issue as > > > well. Hence my > > > feeling is that this is above beta quality (compared to 1.4 etc) and we > > > could do a 1.5 final. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Samisa... > > > > > > On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 10:27, sanjaya singharage wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Are we attending to the serverside issues? > > > > > > > > How about releasing a beta? but making sure that the client side is > > > > release quality. That way the beta will offer a snap shot of the > > > > stable client side for people who want the client features quickly and > > > > it will not be the final.(However originally in the release plan a > > > > beta was not talked about). But this does present a problem for us > > > > over here because we will only be able to test against the Axis c++ > > > > server side.But we need to have the serverside operate reasonably even > > > > for a beta. > > > > > > > > I need some time to integrate the services to the ant services > > > > framework (should be able to do it by tomorrow).and then we can see > > > > how the serverside is operating. > > > > > > > > what do you think folks? any other options available? Is it possible > > > > to go for a code freeze? > > > > > > > > sanjaya. > > > -- > > > Samisa Abeysinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Virtusa Corporation > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/ > > > -- Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
