Hannu Krosing wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to