I just tried it a couple of times, without any problems. What happens
when you try it?
Please just respond to me directly, rather than keeping this going on
the axis-user list.
- Dennis
Franz Fehringer wrote:
Hello Dennis,
The link
http://www.sosnoski.com/jibx-wiki/space/axis2-jibx/soa-for-devs/soa-for-developers.pdf
on this page does not work.
Can you have a look at it?
Thanks
Franz
Dennis Sosnoski schrieb:
Bad specifications are a major part of the issue with
interoperability problems. In the case of SOAP itself, the people who
wrote the specification left too much unspecified and too many
options. In the case of XML Schema, the specification is long,
complex, and confusing - and also provides too many options.
WS-I helped a lot with the basic SOAP features, but didn't address
Schema - and Schema is increasingly where the interoperability
problems originate (both directly, when applications use Schema
constructs that don't work well across frameworks, and indirectly,
when the framework itself has problems - as in this case). I give
some recommendations in this area as part of some of my
presentations. I just posted the slides from my "SOA for Developers"
workshop, which includes a fairly extensive chunk on schema, at
http://www.sosnoski.com/jibx-wiki/space/axis2-jibx/soa-for-devs
There is an effort in progress to come up with a sort of WS-I for
Schema equivalent, through the W3C "XML Schema Patterns for
Databinding Working Group" (http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/).
It looks like the working group is doing a good job on this. I
especially like the way they're defining patterns that can easily be
tested in Schema instances. Hopefully within a year or so everyone
will be able to use the basic patterns and know that they'll be
handled properly by all the major data binding frameworks (or use
some of the advanced ones, and know that they'll be limiting
themselves to selected frameworks).
- Dennis
DBDavide wrote:
...
<ranting>
Too many interoperability issues in real world... everything works
smootly
only if both end points uses the same product or I'm really really
lucky.
- If I'm implementing both server and client I don't see the
advantage of
using a so complicated technology.
- If I'm implementing just one side, the automagically generated
wsdl or
automagically generated client stubs from wsdl it's really a dicer's
oath
:-) 99% of the time you finish digging into wsdl editing or on the wire
analisys...
I was caught in between :-) I'm implementing both sides and I have two
products: Axis on the server side and JBossWS on client side. I
wouldn't
wish it upon my worst enemy: time spent on this technology is becoming
nearly the same time spent implementing the real business logic.
I think that sometime we lose sight of our real targets. I think
that WS-*
are what I call a "tool" technology, They are a help for our
applications.
Using a screwdriver shouldn't be harder than building a car. How
many times, deployng and managing an applications into an application
server is far more complicated than application itself? If it's happen,
probably we missed something.
</ranting>
Bye
--
Davide
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
