Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

["Matthew J. Duftler" <du...@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi All,

Ok, we've put up another release candidate (RC2) with the following changes
from RC1:

Removed css references in .../docs/guide/deploy.html and
.../docs/guide/rpcclient.html.
Added documentation for .../docs/guide/attachments.html.
Cleaned up handling of servlet init-parameters in RPCRouterServlet and
MessageRouterServlet.
Removed transport hook system property dependency. The only remaining call
to System.getProperty(String) is to get "line.separator". This should help
with some of the security constraints for Applets and the like.
Removed some extraneous methods from org.apache.soap.util.StringUtils.
Removed some extraneous CVS tags from org.apache.soap.util.IOUtils.
Added a CVS Repository link to the web-site.
Added a line to SOAPContext.setClassLoader(ClassLoader) to do the actual
setting.
Removed Xerces v1.3.1 workaround patch from Fault.


Please try the code out. If there are no significant bugs found, or changes
committed, then we can vote and hopefully post the release tomorrow
(Wednesday) night.


Thanks,
-Matt

Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

[Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com>]

Jim Hazen writes:
> I know that the current candidate release is a nicer version of the
nightly
> builds.  You guys have done a lot of great work, and I'm personally
looking
> forward to a 2.2 release.  However I have the following concerns:
>
> * That the 2.2 release is being rushed, and adequate time isn't being
> given for
> people to raise concerns with this proposed release.  Many companies, mine
> included, forbid the developing for or releasing against a nightly build.
> I
> know that nightly builds have been around for a while and that many
> features and
> bug fixes have been added.  I'd suggest pointing the people who are having
> problems to a 2.2 release candidate.  People and companies that are using
> 2.1
> successfully, and might be interested in the 2.2 release will need to
> migrate
> some code, and do other tests.  There will probably be questions and
> concerns
> with this new codebase.  These questions should be answered, and possibly
> the
> code base changed before the actual 2.2 release.  Since rc1 and rc2 have
> been
> out for such a short amount of time, many people haven't had the chance to
> do
> the upgrade, migrate the code, and ask questions.

Certainly a valid concern.

> * Continuing support for SOAP 2.1 and 2.2?  I get the impression from some
> messages on this list, that the developers of SOAP are interested in
> spending
> more time developing Axis, and perhaps not supporting 2.1 due to the
amount
> of
> problems newbies seem to have with it.  If this is the case and SOAP 2.1
> will
> not be supported in the future, even more time should be given to the
> release
> schedule of 2.2.  I'm not saying that the SOAP community will be abandoned
> by
> it's developers, just asking that they either support 2.1 and 2.2
> concurrently,
> or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase out
> support
> for 2.1.

I personally hope to support 2.2 and encourage people with problems
with 2.1 to move to 2.2. The only change that may require you to
change code is the move to JAXP. We're NOT going to support the old
parser liaison stuff in 2.2.

Axis is the stated successor to this codebase. As such you can
expect that most Apache SOAP developers are concentrating on that.

> * Interpretability between SOAP 2.1 and 2.2.  Both versions of SOAP are
> supposed
> to fully implement the SOAP v 1.1 protocol (unless specifically stated
> otherwise).  As such, unless a developer is using a feature in 2.2 not
> found in
> 2.1, SOAP 2.2 should be fully backwards compatible.  A 2.1 client should
be
> able
> to talk with a 2.2 server and the other way around.  If this is not the
> case I'd
> consider it a severe defect.  I have been having problems with the 2.2 rc2
> release, and some folks have said that there must be a version conflict,
> that I
> was somehow using an older version of SOAP without realizing it.  While
> this may
> be the case (and I will look into it), even if it were, it shouldn't make
a
> difference.  SOAP 2.2 should be able to generate messages that are
> identical to
> those generated by SOAP 2.1.  If SOAP 2.2 generates messages that conform
a
> later schema, that's cool, however support still needs to be maintained
for
> the
> 1999 schema, and the messages that were generated by the 2.1 client and
> server.

That's all true AFAIK- any SOAP envelope generated by 2.1 can be
read by 2.2 and vice-versa (assuming appropriate config, of course).
Do you have any evidence otherwise?

> * Documentation.  Giant strides have been taken in the SOAP documentation
> department, and props go out to the people who have spent the time to
> improve
> the SOAP docs.  However if this is going to be the last SOAP release
before
> Axis, it's important to have really good documentation.  Things like code
> migration examples, or even utilities, a detailed description of what's
> changed
> including any and all changes to the messages themselves.  Also the
Javadoc
> documentation could be vastly improved.  I know it's very time consuming
to
> go
> back and add Javadoc comments, but for a production release these are
> needed.
> In theory every public method should be documented, in practice I'd settle
> for
> better descriptions of the methods that take collections (like vectors).
> It's
> very confusing for newbies to say, try and figure out how to construct a
> header
> object.  What objects are allowed in these Vectors, and once sent how do
> they
> get the contents back out?

Sorry, but we've put all the energy we can to improve the docs. It
would certainly be nice to have more Javadocs, but the reality is its
just not going to happen today, tomorrow, next week or next month or
(most likely) ever.

The docs in 2.1 were much worse than the current docs. Things are
better with the 2.2 RCs, but certainly far from perfect.

> * XML Parser support.  I sincerely apologize if my previous comments
> sounded
> like a flame, there weren't intended to be so.  It's been my experience
> that the
> XML parser of choice has been the greatest problem for new users.  With
> JAXP
> support this should go away.  I'm glad to hear that people are using
> difference
> parsers successfully.

Great!

> * XMI support?  What is the status of XMI object support.  Last time I
> checked
> the latest version of the XMIToolkit caused SOAP to generate messages that
> were
> unparseable due to multiple XML declaration lines.  Someone said they were
> looking into this problem and would release an updated xmisoap.jar.  I see
> that
> there is a new xmisoap.jar.  What have people's experience been with this
> new
> jar and IBM's latest XMIToolkit?

I'm not sure what the answer is to this one .. I'll check. Are people
actually using XML support?

> These are my outstanding questions.  I'm sure there are others out there
> that
> have more.  Until these are resolved I would be against calling rc2 the
> final
> SOAP 2.2 release.

There had been 340 downloads of RC1 the first day. While that's a small
number compared to the total, that's not a bad number. Assuming some
percentage of them tested things out then we're doing pretty well so far.

Sanjiva.

RE: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

["Matthew J. Duftler" <du...@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi Jim,

I'll let Sanjiva answer most of these questions, but I'll just address a
couple of them.

>* Interpretability between SOAP 2.1 and 2.2.  Both versions of SOAP are
supposed
>to fully implement the SOAP v 1.1 protocol (unless specifically stated
>otherwise).

The limitations are, and have been, described in the releases.

>As such, unless a developer is using a feature in 2.2 not found in
>2.1, SOAP 2.2 should be fully backwards compatible.

If you are referring to the SOAP messages generated/read by the code, then
of course they are (unless, as you mentioned, later relases support SOAP
v1.1 features not supported by earlier releases).

>A 2.1 client should be able
>to talk with a 2.2 server and the other way around.  If this is not the
case I'd
>consider it a severe defect.

Have you found a case in which it does not?

>I have been having problems with the 2.2 rc2
>release, and some folks have said that there must be a version conflict,
that I
>was somehow using an older version of SOAP without realizing it.

What problems? I may have missed the descriptions.

> * Continuing support for SOAP 2.1 and 2.2?  I get the impression from some
> messages on this list, that the developers of SOAP are interested
> in spending
> more time developing Axis, and perhaps not supporting 2.1 due to
> the amount of
> problems newbies seem to have with it.  If this is the case and
> SOAP 2.1 will
> not be supported in the future, even more time should be given to
> the release
> schedule of 2.2.  I'm not saying that the SOAP community will be
> abandoned by
> it's developers, just asking that they either support 2.1 and 2.2
> concurrently,
> or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase
> out support
> for 2.1.

We have started to get Apache SOAP set up in BugZilla (although we've had 2
or 3 releases without ever using it), and we intend to support it.

>While this may
>be the case (and I will look into it), even if it were, it shouldn't make a
>difference. SOAP 2.2 should be able to generate messages that are identical
to
>those generated by SOAP 2.1.  If SOAP 2.2 generates messages that conform a
>later schema, that's cool, however support still needs to be maintained for
the
>1999 schema, and the messages that were generated by the 2.1 client and
server.

I believe that's exactly how the updated schema support was implemented. If
you are talking about newer version of classes (like DeploymentDescriptor,
for example) being class-compatible with older versions, then that's not the
case. Users sometimes have problems with using newer releases because they
forget to remove older versions of the web application from their servlet
container. Newer releases are not expected to be fully class-compatible with
older releases. When, for example, deployedservices.ds is serialized out
with v2.1, there's no expectation that you can resurrect this file into an
object graph of v2.2 org.apache.soap.server.DeploymentDescriptors. In
addition, the servlet specification says that web applications are to be
updated in a servlet-container-implementation-specific manner. In Tomcat, I
believe you have to remove the directory. Since our web-based admin client
also uses JSPs, and because of this, the work directory (which holds the
compiled JSPs) may have to be deleted when moving to a new version (since
classes change). The only other problem I can recall with respect to moving
from v2.1 to v2.2rc* had to do with older version of the code still being
found on the classpath.

> or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase
> out support
> for 2.1.

I believe that one of the requirements on the Axis list is an upgrade path
from Apache SOAP. I don't think we should hold up the thing to be upgraded
from until the thing to be upgraded to figures out how to do the upgrade.

You raise some valid concerns. I would also like to raise one. A large
amount fixes, bugs, and features have been applied, made, and added; more
than between previous releases. While making sure that everything is good
with a release candidate is obviously a goal, it is also a goal to make sure
that the large number of people relying on things that are in the nightly
builds, but not the previous release, have a released version to work from
and base their code on. It's never been a requirement for previous releases
that every method is documented. If someone is willing to spend a lot of
time to document every method, that would be great. However, I don't think
all the good work of the many people that went into this release should be
held up (from release) while waiting for methods that haven't changed for
over a year become documented.

Thanks,
-Matt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jim@deathstar.smateo1.sfba.home.com
> [mailto:jim@deathstar.smateo1.sfba.home.com]On Behalf Of Jim Hazen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 1:55 PM
> To: soap-user@xml.apache.org
> Cc: soap-dev
> Subject: Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted
>
>
> Hi Sanjiva,
>
> I know that the current candidate release is a nicer version of
> the nightly
> builds.  You guys have done a lot of great work, and I'm
> personally looking
> forward to a 2.2 release.  However I have the following concerns:
>
> * That the 2.2 release is being rushed, and adequate time isn't
> being given for
> people to raise concerns with this proposed release.  Many companies, mine
> included, forbid the developing for or releasing against a
> nightly build.  I
> know that nightly builds have been around for a while and that
> many features and
> bug fixes have been added.  I'd suggest pointing the people who are having
> problems to a 2.2 release candidate.  People and companies that
> are using 2.1
> successfully, and might be interested in the 2.2 release will
> need to migrate
> some code, and do other tests.  There will probably be questions
> and concerns
> with this new codebase.  These questions should be answered, and
> possibly the
> code base changed before the actual 2.2 release.  Since rc1 and
> rc2 have been
> out for such a short amount of time, many people haven't had the
> chance to do
> the upgrade, migrate the code, and ask questions.
>
> * Continuing support for SOAP 2.1 and 2.2?  I get the impression from some
> messages on this list, that the developers of SOAP are interested
> in spending
> more time developing Axis, and perhaps not supporting 2.1 due to
> the amount of
> problems newbies seem to have with it.  If this is the case and
> SOAP 2.1 will
> not be supported in the future, even more time should be given to
> the release
> schedule of 2.2.  I'm not saying that the SOAP community will be
> abandoned by
> it's developers, just asking that they either support 2.1 and 2.2
> concurrently,
> or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase
> out support
> for 2.1.
>
> * Interpretability between SOAP 2.1 and 2.2.  Both versions of
> SOAP are supposed
> to fully implement the SOAP v 1.1 protocol (unless specifically stated
> otherwise).  As such, unless a developer is using a feature in
> 2.2 not found in
> 2.1, SOAP 2.2 should be fully backwards compatible.  A 2.1 client
> should be able
> to talk with a 2.2 server and the other way around.  If this is
> not the case I'd
> consider it a severe defect.  I have been having problems with the 2.2 rc2
> release, and some folks have said that there must be a version
> conflict, that I
> was somehow using an older version of SOAP without realizing it.
> While this may
> be the case (and I will look into it), even if it were, it
> shouldn't make a
> difference.  SOAP 2.2 should be able to generate messages that
> are identical to
> those generated by SOAP 2.1.  If SOAP 2.2 generates messages that
> conform a
> later schema, that's cool, however support still needs to be
> maintained for the
> 1999 schema, and the messages that were generated by the 2.1
> client and server.
>
> * Documentation.  Giant strides have been taken in the SOAP documentation
> department, and props go out to the people who have spent the
> time to improve
> the SOAP docs.  However if this is going to be the last SOAP
> release before
> Axis, it's important to have really good documentation.  Things like code
> migration examples, or even utilities, a detailed description of
> what's changed
> including any and all changes to the messages themselves.  Also
> the Javadoc
> documentation could be vastly improved.  I know it's very time
> consuming to go
> back and add Javadoc comments, but for a production release these
> are needed.
> In theory every public method should be documented, in practice
> I'd settle for
> better descriptions of the methods that take collections (like
> vectors).  It's
> very confusing for newbies to say, try and figure out how to
> construct a header
> object.  What objects are allowed in these Vectors, and once sent
> how do they
> get the contents back out?
>
> * XML Parser support.  I sincerely apologize if my previous
> comments sounded
> like a flame, there weren't intended to be so.  It's been my
> experience that the
> XML parser of choice has been the greatest problem for new users.
>  With JAXP
> support this should go away.  I'm glad to hear that people are
> using difference
> parsers successfully.
>
> * XMI support?  What is the status of XMI object support.  Last
> time I checked
> the latest version of the XMIToolkit caused SOAP to generate
> messages that were
> unparseable due to multiple XML declaration lines.  Someone said they were
> looking into this problem and would release an updated
> xmisoap.jar.  I see that
> there is a new xmisoap.jar.  What have people's experience been
> with this new
> jar and IBM's latest XMIToolkit?
>
> These are my outstanding questions.  I'm sure there are others
> out there that
> have more.  Until these are resolved I would be against calling
> rc2 the final
> SOAP 2.2 release.
>
> -Jim
>
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > > This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users
> don't start
> > to
> > > migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be given
> > weeks, not
> > > days, to make this migration.
> >
> > The current candidate release is basically a cleanup up, packaged
> > version of the latest nightly builds. There are still hundreds of
> > people downloading the 2.1 release and getting frustrated by the
> > its various issues and not benefitting from the signicant changes
> > that have gone in since 2.1. Only a small group downloads nightly
> > builds.
> >
> > The objective is to "release early and often" as Sam has put it
> > before. This release is a way to get people to move to the current
> > CVS snapshot more than anything else.
> >
> > > In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is
> still not
> > release
> > > quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at
> least.  The FAQ
> > should
> > > probably also be updated to include some of the million
> questions posted
> > to this
> > > list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1 setup
> > work?".
> >
> > I am on the hook to update the intro page for 2.2 and I am doing it
> > right now. There are two troubleshooting tables (which will be
> consolidated)
> > which were filled in using exactly the model you described - by looking
> > through the questions on soap-user and answering them. That table will
> > never be complete, but I believe I got most of the bigger ones .. I will
> > add more today.
> >
> > > Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and
> isn't tied to
> > > Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses
> Crimson), or
> > other
> > > JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3
> (running over the
> > JAXP
> > > APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the
> dependency on
> > Xerces,
> > > you've just removed the dependency on methods named
> XercesParserLiaison (A
> > step
> > > in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal
> that's been
> > > advertised).
> >
> > Um, did you try another JAXP parser and did it fail? If not your
> > criticism is not well founded. FYI- we have tried with Crimson as
> > well and it works just great. If you're just conjecturing that we
> > haven't done it right then you're just criticizing without basis.
> >
> > If you find a problem with the advertised total Xerces parser
> > dependency removal then please post a bug report.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> > For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org
>

RE: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

["Matthew J. Duftler" <du...@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi Jim,

I'll let Sanjiva answer most of these questions, but I'll just address a
couple of them.

>* Interpretability between SOAP 2.1 and 2.2.  Both versions of SOAP are
supposed
>to fully implement the SOAP v 1.1 protocol (unless specifically stated
>otherwise).

The limitations are, and have been, described in the releases.

>As such, unless a developer is using a feature in 2.2 not found in
>2.1, SOAP 2.2 should be fully backwards compatible.

If you are referring to the SOAP messages generated/read by the code, then
of course they are (unless, as you mentioned, later relases support SOAP
v1.1 features not supported by earlier releases).

>A 2.1 client should be able
>to talk with a 2.2 server and the other way around.  If this is not the
case I'd
>consider it a severe defect.

Have you found a case in which it does not?

>I have been having problems with the 2.2 rc2
>release, and some folks have said that there must be a version conflict,
that I
>was somehow using an older version of SOAP without realizing it.

What problems? I may have missed the descriptions.

> * Continuing support for SOAP 2.1 and 2.2?  I get the impression from some
> messages on this list, that the developers of SOAP are interested
> in spending
> more time developing Axis, and perhaps not supporting 2.1 due to
> the amount of
> problems newbies seem to have with it.  If this is the case and
> SOAP 2.1 will
> not be supported in the future, even more time should be given to
> the release
> schedule of 2.2.  I'm not saying that the SOAP community will be
> abandoned by
> it's developers, just asking that they either support 2.1 and 2.2
> concurrently,
> or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase
> out support
> for 2.1.

We have started to get Apache SOAP set up in BugZilla (although we've had 2
or 3 releases without ever using it), and we intend to support it.

>While this may
>be the case (and I will look into it), even if it were, it shouldn't make a
>difference. SOAP 2.2 should be able to generate messages that are identical
to
>those generated by SOAP 2.1.  If SOAP 2.2 generates messages that conform a
>later schema, that's cool, however support still needs to be maintained for
the
>1999 schema, and the messages that were generated by the 2.1 client and
server.

I believe that's exactly how the updated schema support was implemented. If
you are talking about newer version of classes (like DeploymentDescriptor,
for example) being class-compatible with older versions, then that's not the
case. Users sometimes have problems with using newer releases because they
forget to remove older versions of the web application from their servlet
container. Newer releases are not expected to be fully class-compatible with
older releases. When, for example, deployedservices.ds is serialized out
with v2.1, there's no expectation that you can resurrect this file into an
object graph of v2.2 org.apache.soap.server.DeploymentDescriptors. In
addition, the servlet specification says that web applications are to be
updated in a servlet-container-implementation-specific manner. In Tomcat, I
believe you have to remove the directory. Since our web-based admin client
also uses JSPs, and because of this, the work directory (which holds the
compiled JSPs) may have to be deleted when moving to a new version (since
classes change). The only other problem I can recall with respect to moving
from v2.1 to v2.2rc* had to do with older version of the code still being
found on the classpath.

> or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase
> out support
> for 2.1.

I believe that one of the requirements on the Axis list is an upgrade path
from Apache SOAP. I don't think we should hold up the thing to be upgraded
from until the thing to be upgraded to figures out how to do the upgrade.

You raise some valid concerns. I would also like to raise one. A large
amount fixes, bugs, and features have been applied, made, and added; more
than between previous releases. While making sure that everything is good
with a release candidate is obviously a goal, it is also a goal to make sure
that the large number of people relying on things that are in the nightly
builds, but not the previous release, have a released version to work from
and base their code on. It's never been a requirement for previous releases
that every method is documented. If someone is willing to spend a lot of
time to document every method, that would be great. However, I don't think
all the good work of the many people that went into this release should be
held up (from release) while waiting for methods that haven't changed for
over a year become documented.

Thanks,
-Matt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jim@deathstar.smateo1.sfba.home.com
> [mailto:jim@deathstar.smateo1.sfba.home.com]On Behalf Of Jim Hazen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 1:55 PM
> To: soap-user@xml.apache.org
> Cc: soap-dev
> Subject: Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted
>
>
> Hi Sanjiva,
>
> I know that the current candidate release is a nicer version of
> the nightly
> builds.  You guys have done a lot of great work, and I'm
> personally looking
> forward to a 2.2 release.  However I have the following concerns:
>
> * That the 2.2 release is being rushed, and adequate time isn't
> being given for
> people to raise concerns with this proposed release.  Many companies, mine
> included, forbid the developing for or releasing against a
> nightly build.  I
> know that nightly builds have been around for a while and that
> many features and
> bug fixes have been added.  I'd suggest pointing the people who are having
> problems to a 2.2 release candidate.  People and companies that
> are using 2.1
> successfully, and might be interested in the 2.2 release will
> need to migrate
> some code, and do other tests.  There will probably be questions
> and concerns
> with this new codebase.  These questions should be answered, and
> possibly the
> code base changed before the actual 2.2 release.  Since rc1 and
> rc2 have been
> out for such a short amount of time, many people haven't had the
> chance to do
> the upgrade, migrate the code, and ask questions.
>
> * Continuing support for SOAP 2.1 and 2.2?  I get the impression from some
> messages on this list, that the developers of SOAP are interested
> in spending
> more time developing Axis, and perhaps not supporting 2.1 due to
> the amount of
> problems newbies seem to have with it.  If this is the case and
> SOAP 2.1 will
> not be supported in the future, even more time should be given to
> the release
> schedule of 2.2.  I'm not saying that the SOAP community will be
> abandoned by
> it's developers, just asking that they either support 2.1 and 2.2
> concurrently,
> or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase
> out support
> for 2.1.
>
> * Interpretability between SOAP 2.1 and 2.2.  Both versions of
> SOAP are supposed
> to fully implement the SOAP v 1.1 protocol (unless specifically stated
> otherwise).  As such, unless a developer is using a feature in
> 2.2 not found in
> 2.1, SOAP 2.2 should be fully backwards compatible.  A 2.1 client
> should be able
> to talk with a 2.2 server and the other way around.  If this is
> not the case I'd
> consider it a severe defect.  I have been having problems with the 2.2 rc2
> release, and some folks have said that there must be a version
> conflict, that I
> was somehow using an older version of SOAP without realizing it.
> While this may
> be the case (and I will look into it), even if it were, it
> shouldn't make a
> difference.  SOAP 2.2 should be able to generate messages that
> are identical to
> those generated by SOAP 2.1.  If SOAP 2.2 generates messages that
> conform a
> later schema, that's cool, however support still needs to be
> maintained for the
> 1999 schema, and the messages that were generated by the 2.1
> client and server.
>
> * Documentation.  Giant strides have been taken in the SOAP documentation
> department, and props go out to the people who have spent the
> time to improve
> the SOAP docs.  However if this is going to be the last SOAP
> release before
> Axis, it's important to have really good documentation.  Things like code
> migration examples, or even utilities, a detailed description of
> what's changed
> including any and all changes to the messages themselves.  Also
> the Javadoc
> documentation could be vastly improved.  I know it's very time
> consuming to go
> back and add Javadoc comments, but for a production release these
> are needed.
> In theory every public method should be documented, in practice
> I'd settle for
> better descriptions of the methods that take collections (like
> vectors).  It's
> very confusing for newbies to say, try and figure out how to
> construct a header
> object.  What objects are allowed in these Vectors, and once sent
> how do they
> get the contents back out?
>
> * XML Parser support.  I sincerely apologize if my previous
> comments sounded
> like a flame, there weren't intended to be so.  It's been my
> experience that the
> XML parser of choice has been the greatest problem for new users.
>  With JAXP
> support this should go away.  I'm glad to hear that people are
> using difference
> parsers successfully.
>
> * XMI support?  What is the status of XMI object support.  Last
> time I checked
> the latest version of the XMIToolkit caused SOAP to generate
> messages that were
> unparseable due to multiple XML declaration lines.  Someone said they were
> looking into this problem and would release an updated
> xmisoap.jar.  I see that
> there is a new xmisoap.jar.  What have people's experience been
> with this new
> jar and IBM's latest XMIToolkit?
>
> These are my outstanding questions.  I'm sure there are others
> out there that
> have more.  Until these are resolved I would be against calling
> rc2 the final
> SOAP 2.2 release.
>
> -Jim
>
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > > This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users
> don't start
> > to
> > > migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be given
> > weeks, not
> > > days, to make this migration.
> >
> > The current candidate release is basically a cleanup up, packaged
> > version of the latest nightly builds. There are still hundreds of
> > people downloading the 2.1 release and getting frustrated by the
> > its various issues and not benefitting from the signicant changes
> > that have gone in since 2.1. Only a small group downloads nightly
> > builds.
> >
> > The objective is to "release early and often" as Sam has put it
> > before. This release is a way to get people to move to the current
> > CVS snapshot more than anything else.
> >
> > > In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is
> still not
> > release
> > > quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at
> least.  The FAQ
> > should
> > > probably also be updated to include some of the million
> questions posted
> > to this
> > > list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1 setup
> > work?".
> >
> > I am on the hook to update the intro page for 2.2 and I am doing it
> > right now. There are two troubleshooting tables (which will be
> consolidated)
> > which were filled in using exactly the model you described - by looking
> > through the questions on soap-user and answering them. That table will
> > never be complete, but I believe I got most of the bigger ones .. I will
> > add more today.
> >
> > > Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and
> isn't tied to
> > > Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses
> Crimson), or
> > other
> > > JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3
> (running over the
> > JAXP
> > > APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the
> dependency on
> > Xerces,
> > > you've just removed the dependency on methods named
> XercesParserLiaison (A
> > step
> > > in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal
> that's been
> > > advertised).
> >
> > Um, did you try another JAXP parser and did it fail? If not your
> > criticism is not well founded. FYI- we have tried with Crimson as
> > well and it works just great. If you're just conjecturing that we
> > haven't done it right then you're just criticizing without basis.
> >
> > If you find a problem with the advertised total Xerces parser
> > dependency removal then please post a bug report.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> > For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org

RE: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

["Matthew J. Duftler" <du...@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi Jim,

I'll let Sanjiva answer most of these questions, but I'll just address a
couple of them.

>* Interpretability between SOAP 2.1 and 2.2.  Both versions of SOAP are
supposed
>to fully implement the SOAP v 1.1 protocol (unless specifically stated
>otherwise).

The limitations are, and have been, described in the releases.

>As such, unless a developer is using a feature in 2.2 not found in
>2.1, SOAP 2.2 should be fully backwards compatible.

If you are referring to the SOAP messages generated/read by the code, then
of course they are (unless, as you mentioned, later relases support SOAP
v1.1 features not supported by earlier releases).

>A 2.1 client should be able
>to talk with a 2.2 server and the other way around.  If this is not the
case I'd
>consider it a severe defect.

Have you found a case in which it does not?

>I have been having problems with the 2.2 rc2
>release, and some folks have said that there must be a version conflict,
that I
>was somehow using an older version of SOAP without realizing it.

What problems? I may have missed the descriptions.

> * Continuing support for SOAP 2.1 and 2.2?  I get the impression from some
> messages on this list, that the developers of SOAP are interested
> in spending
> more time developing Axis, and perhaps not supporting 2.1 due to
> the amount of
> problems newbies seem to have with it.  If this is the case and
> SOAP 2.1 will
> not be supported in the future, even more time should be given to
> the release
> schedule of 2.2.  I'm not saying that the SOAP community will be
> abandoned by
> it's developers, just asking that they either support 2.1 and 2.2
> concurrently,
> or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase
> out support
> for 2.1.

We have started to get Apache SOAP set up in BugZilla (although we've had 2
or 3 releases without ever using it), and we intend to support it.

>While this may
>be the case (and I will look into it), even if it were, it shouldn't make a
>difference. SOAP 2.2 should be able to generate messages that are identical
to
>those generated by SOAP 2.1.  If SOAP 2.2 generates messages that conform a
>later schema, that's cool, however support still needs to be maintained for
the
>1999 schema, and the messages that were generated by the 2.1 client and
server.

I believe that's exactly how the updated schema support was implemented. If
you are talking about newer version of classes (like DeploymentDescriptor,
for example) being class-compatible with older versions, then that's not the
case. Users sometimes have problems with using newer releases because they
forget to remove older versions of the web application from their servlet
container. Newer releases are not expected to be fully class-compatible with
older releases. When, for example, deployedservices.ds is serialized out
with v2.1, there's no expectation that you can resurrect this file into an
object graph of v2.2 org.apache.soap.server.DeploymentDescriptors. In
addition, the servlet specification says that web applications are to be
updated in a servlet-container-implementation-specific manner. In Tomcat, I
believe you have to remove the directory. Since our web-based admin client
also uses JSPs, and because of this, the work directory (which holds the
compiled JSPs) may have to be deleted when moving to a new version (since
classes change). The only other problem I can recall with respect to moving
from v2.1 to v2.2rc* had to do with older version of the code still being
found on the classpath.

> or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase
> out support
> for 2.1.

I believe that one of the requirements on the Axis list is an upgrade path
from Apache SOAP. I don't think we should hold up the thing to be upgraded
from until the thing to be upgraded to figures out how to do the upgrade.

You raise some valid concerns. I would also like to raise one. A large
amount fixes, bugs, and features have been applied, made, and added; more
than between previous releases. While making sure that everything is good
with a release candidate is obviously a goal, it is also a goal to make sure
that the large number of people relying on things that are in the nightly
builds, but not the previous release, have a released version to work from
and base their code on. It's never been a requirement for previous releases
that every method is documented. If someone is willing to spend a lot of
time to document every method, that would be great. However, I don't think
all the good work of the many people that went into this release should be
held up (from release) while waiting for methods that haven't changed for
over a year become documented.

Thanks,
-Matt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jim@deathstar.smateo1.sfba.home.com
> [mailto:jim@deathstar.smateo1.sfba.home.com]On Behalf Of Jim Hazen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 1:55 PM
> To: soap-user@xml.apache.org
> Cc: soap-dev
> Subject: Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted
>
>
> Hi Sanjiva,
>
> I know that the current candidate release is a nicer version of
> the nightly
> builds.  You guys have done a lot of great work, and I'm
> personally looking
> forward to a 2.2 release.  However I have the following concerns:
>
> * That the 2.2 release is being rushed, and adequate time isn't
> being given for
> people to raise concerns with this proposed release.  Many companies, mine
> included, forbid the developing for or releasing against a
> nightly build.  I
> know that nightly builds have been around for a while and that
> many features and
> bug fixes have been added.  I'd suggest pointing the people who are having
> problems to a 2.2 release candidate.  People and companies that
> are using 2.1
> successfully, and might be interested in the 2.2 release will
> need to migrate
> some code, and do other tests.  There will probably be questions
> and concerns
> with this new codebase.  These questions should be answered, and
> possibly the
> code base changed before the actual 2.2 release.  Since rc1 and
> rc2 have been
> out for such a short amount of time, many people haven't had the
> chance to do
> the upgrade, migrate the code, and ask questions.
>
> * Continuing support for SOAP 2.1 and 2.2?  I get the impression from some
> messages on this list, that the developers of SOAP are interested
> in spending
> more time developing Axis, and perhaps not supporting 2.1 due to
> the amount of
> problems newbies seem to have with it.  If this is the case and
> SOAP 2.1 will
> not be supported in the future, even more time should be given to
> the release
> schedule of 2.2.  I'm not saying that the SOAP community will be
> abandoned by
> it's developers, just asking that they either support 2.1 and 2.2
> concurrently,
> or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase
> out support
> for 2.1.
>
> * Interpretability between SOAP 2.1 and 2.2.  Both versions of
> SOAP are supposed
> to fully implement the SOAP v 1.1 protocol (unless specifically stated
> otherwise).  As such, unless a developer is using a feature in
> 2.2 not found in
> 2.1, SOAP 2.2 should be fully backwards compatible.  A 2.1 client
> should be able
> to talk with a 2.2 server and the other way around.  If this is
> not the case I'd
> consider it a severe defect.  I have been having problems with the 2.2 rc2
> release, and some folks have said that there must be a version
> conflict, that I
> was somehow using an older version of SOAP without realizing it.
> While this may
> be the case (and I will look into it), even if it were, it
> shouldn't make a
> difference.  SOAP 2.2 should be able to generate messages that
> are identical to
> those generated by SOAP 2.1.  If SOAP 2.2 generates messages that
> conform a
> later schema, that's cool, however support still needs to be
> maintained for the
> 1999 schema, and the messages that were generated by the 2.1
> client and server.
>
> * Documentation.  Giant strides have been taken in the SOAP documentation
> department, and props go out to the people who have spent the
> time to improve
> the SOAP docs.  However if this is going to be the last SOAP
> release before
> Axis, it's important to have really good documentation.  Things like code
> migration examples, or even utilities, a detailed description of
> what's changed
> including any and all changes to the messages themselves.  Also
> the Javadoc
> documentation could be vastly improved.  I know it's very time
> consuming to go
> back and add Javadoc comments, but for a production release these
> are needed.
> In theory every public method should be documented, in practice
> I'd settle for
> better descriptions of the methods that take collections (like
> vectors).  It's
> very confusing for newbies to say, try and figure out how to
> construct a header
> object.  What objects are allowed in these Vectors, and once sent
> how do they
> get the contents back out?
>
> * XML Parser support.  I sincerely apologize if my previous
> comments sounded
> like a flame, there weren't intended to be so.  It's been my
> experience that the
> XML parser of choice has been the greatest problem for new users.
>  With JAXP
> support this should go away.  I'm glad to hear that people are
> using difference
> parsers successfully.
>
> * XMI support?  What is the status of XMI object support.  Last
> time I checked
> the latest version of the XMIToolkit caused SOAP to generate
> messages that were
> unparseable due to multiple XML declaration lines.  Someone said they were
> looking into this problem and would release an updated
> xmisoap.jar.  I see that
> there is a new xmisoap.jar.  What have people's experience been
> with this new
> jar and IBM's latest XMIToolkit?
>
> These are my outstanding questions.  I'm sure there are others
> out there that
> have more.  Until these are resolved I would be against calling
> rc2 the final
> SOAP 2.2 release.
>
> -Jim
>
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > > This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users
> don't start
> > to
> > > migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be given
> > weeks, not
> > > days, to make this migration.
> >
> > The current candidate release is basically a cleanup up, packaged
> > version of the latest nightly builds. There are still hundreds of
> > people downloading the 2.1 release and getting frustrated by the
> > its various issues and not benefitting from the signicant changes
> > that have gone in since 2.1. Only a small group downloads nightly
> > builds.
> >
> > The objective is to "release early and often" as Sam has put it
> > before. This release is a way to get people to move to the current
> > CVS snapshot more than anything else.
> >
> > > In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is
> still not
> > release
> > > quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at
> least.  The FAQ
> > should
> > > probably also be updated to include some of the million
> questions posted
> > to this
> > > list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1 setup
> > work?".
> >
> > I am on the hook to update the intro page for 2.2 and I am doing it
> > right now. There are two troubleshooting tables (which will be
> consolidated)
> > which were filled in using exactly the model you described - by looking
> > through the questions on soap-user and answering them. That table will
> > never be complete, but I believe I got most of the bigger ones .. I will
> > add more today.
> >
> > > Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and
> isn't tied to
> > > Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses
> Crimson), or
> > other
> > > JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3
> (running over the
> > JAXP
> > > APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the
> dependency on
> > Xerces,
> > > you've just removed the dependency on methods named
> XercesParserLiaison (A
> > step
> > > in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal
> that's been
> > > advertised).
> >
> > Um, did you try another JAXP parser and did it fail? If not your
> > criticism is not well founded. FYI- we have tried with Crimson as
> > well and it works just great. If you're just conjecturing that we
> > haven't done it right then you're just criticizing without basis.
> >
> > If you find a problem with the advertised total Xerces parser
> > dependency removal then please post a bug report.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> > For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org

Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

[Jim Hazen <ji...@myplay.com>]

Hi Sanjiva,

I know that the current candidate release is a nicer version of the nightly
builds.  You guys have done a lot of great work, and I'm personally looking
forward to a 2.2 release.  However I have the following concerns:

* That the 2.2 release is being rushed, and adequate time isn't being given for
people to raise concerns with this proposed release.  Many companies, mine
included, forbid the developing for or releasing against a nightly build.  I
know that nightly builds have been around for a while and that many features and
bug fixes have been added.  I'd suggest pointing the people who are having
problems to a 2.2 release candidate.  People and companies that are using 2.1
successfully, and might be interested in the 2.2 release will need to migrate
some code, and do other tests.  There will probably be questions and concerns
with this new codebase.  These questions should be answered, and possibly the
code base changed before the actual 2.2 release.  Since rc1 and rc2 have been
out for such a short amount of time, many people haven't had the chance to do
the upgrade, migrate the code, and ask questions.

* Continuing support for SOAP 2.1 and 2.2?  I get the impression from some
messages on this list, that the developers of SOAP are interested in spending
more time developing Axis, and perhaps not supporting 2.1 due to the amount of
problems newbies seem to have with it.  If this is the case and SOAP 2.1 will
not be supported in the future, even more time should be given to the release
schedule of 2.2.  I'm not saying that the SOAP community will be abandoned by
it's developers, just asking that they either support 2.1 and 2.2 concurrently,
or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase out support
for 2.1.

* Interpretability between SOAP 2.1 and 2.2.  Both versions of SOAP are supposed
to fully implement the SOAP v 1.1 protocol (unless specifically stated
otherwise).  As such, unless a developer is using a feature in 2.2 not found in
2.1, SOAP 2.2 should be fully backwards compatible.  A 2.1 client should be able
to talk with a 2.2 server and the other way around.  If this is not the case I'd
consider it a severe defect.  I have been having problems with the 2.2 rc2
release, and some folks have said that there must be a version conflict, that I
was somehow using an older version of SOAP without realizing it.  While this may
be the case (and I will look into it), even if it were, it shouldn't make a
difference.  SOAP 2.2 should be able to generate messages that are identical to
those generated by SOAP 2.1.  If SOAP 2.2 generates messages that conform a
later schema, that's cool, however support still needs to be maintained for the
1999 schema, and the messages that were generated by the 2.1 client and server.

* Documentation.  Giant strides have been taken in the SOAP documentation
department, and props go out to the people who have spent the time to improve
the SOAP docs.  However if this is going to be the last SOAP release before
Axis, it's important to have really good documentation.  Things like code
migration examples, or even utilities, a detailed description of what's changed
including any and all changes to the messages themselves.  Also the Javadoc
documentation could be vastly improved.  I know it's very time consuming to go
back and add Javadoc comments, but for a production release these are needed.
In theory every public method should be documented, in practice I'd settle for
better descriptions of the methods that take collections (like vectors).  It's
very confusing for newbies to say, try and figure out how to construct a header
object.  What objects are allowed in these Vectors, and once sent how do they
get the contents back out?

* XML Parser support.  I sincerely apologize if my previous comments sounded
like a flame, there weren't intended to be so.  It's been my experience that the
XML parser of choice has been the greatest problem for new users.  With JAXP
support this should go away.  I'm glad to hear that people are using difference
parsers successfully.

* XMI support?  What is the status of XMI object support.  Last time I checked
the latest version of the XMIToolkit caused SOAP to generate messages that were
unparseable due to multiple XML declaration lines.  Someone said they were
looking into this problem and would release an updated xmisoap.jar.  I see that
there is a new xmisoap.jar.  What have people's experience been with this new
jar and IBM's latest XMIToolkit?

These are my outstanding questions.  I'm sure there are others out there that
have more.  Until these are resolved I would be against calling rc2 the final
SOAP 2.2 release.

-Jim

> Hi Jim,
>
> > This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users don't start
> to
> > migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be given
> weeks, not
> > days, to make this migration.
>
> The current candidate release is basically a cleanup up, packaged
> version of the latest nightly builds. There are still hundreds of
> people downloading the 2.1 release and getting frustrated by the
> its various issues and not benefitting from the signicant changes
> that have gone in since 2.1. Only a small group downloads nightly
> builds.
>
> The objective is to "release early and often" as Sam has put it
> before. This release is a way to get people to move to the current
> CVS snapshot more than anything else.
>
> > In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is still not
> release
> > quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at least.  The FAQ
> should
> > probably also be updated to include some of the million questions posted
> to this
> > list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1 setup
> work?".
>
> I am on the hook to update the intro page for 2.2 and I am doing it
> right now. There are two troubleshooting tables (which will be consolidated)
> which were filled in using exactly the model you described - by looking
> through the questions on soap-user and answering them. That table will
> never be complete, but I believe I got most of the bigger ones .. I will
> add more today.
>
> > Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and isn't tied to
> > Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses Crimson), or
> other
> > JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3 (running over the
> JAXP
> > APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the dependency on
> Xerces,
> > you've just removed the dependency on methods named XercesParserLiaison (A
> step
> > in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal that's been
> > advertised).
>
> Um, did you try another JAXP parser and did it fail? If not your
> criticism is not well founded. FYI- we have tried with Crimson as
> well and it works just great. If you're just conjecturing that we
> haven't done it right then you're just criticizing without basis.
>
> If you find a problem with the advertised total Xerces parser
> dependency removal then please post a bug report.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org

Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

[Jim Hazen <ji...@myplay.com>]

Hi Sanjiva,

I know that the current candidate release is a nicer version of the nightly
builds.  You guys have done a lot of great work, and I'm personally looking
forward to a 2.2 release.  However I have the following concerns:

* That the 2.2 release is being rushed, and adequate time isn't being given for
people to raise concerns with this proposed release.  Many companies, mine
included, forbid the developing for or releasing against a nightly build.  I
know that nightly builds have been around for a while and that many features and
bug fixes have been added.  I'd suggest pointing the people who are having
problems to a 2.2 release candidate.  People and companies that are using 2.1
successfully, and might be interested in the 2.2 release will need to migrate
some code, and do other tests.  There will probably be questions and concerns
with this new codebase.  These questions should be answered, and possibly the
code base changed before the actual 2.2 release.  Since rc1 and rc2 have been
out for such a short amount of time, many people haven't had the chance to do
the upgrade, migrate the code, and ask questions.

* Continuing support for SOAP 2.1 and 2.2?  I get the impression from some
messages on this list, that the developers of SOAP are interested in spending
more time developing Axis, and perhaps not supporting 2.1 due to the amount of
problems newbies seem to have with it.  If this is the case and SOAP 2.1 will
not be supported in the future, even more time should be given to the release
schedule of 2.2.  I'm not saying that the SOAP community will be abandoned by
it's developers, just asking that they either support 2.1 and 2.2 concurrently,
or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase out support
for 2.1.

* Interpretability between SOAP 2.1 and 2.2.  Both versions of SOAP are supposed
to fully implement the SOAP v 1.1 protocol (unless specifically stated
otherwise).  As such, unless a developer is using a feature in 2.2 not found in
2.1, SOAP 2.2 should be fully backwards compatible.  A 2.1 client should be able
to talk with a 2.2 server and the other way around.  If this is not the case I'd
consider it a severe defect.  I have been having problems with the 2.2 rc2
release, and some folks have said that there must be a version conflict, that I
was somehow using an older version of SOAP without realizing it.  While this may
be the case (and I will look into it), even if it were, it shouldn't make a
difference.  SOAP 2.2 should be able to generate messages that are identical to
those generated by SOAP 2.1.  If SOAP 2.2 generates messages that conform a
later schema, that's cool, however support still needs to be maintained for the
1999 schema, and the messages that were generated by the 2.1 client and server.

* Documentation.  Giant strides have been taken in the SOAP documentation
department, and props go out to the people who have spent the time to improve
the SOAP docs.  However if this is going to be the last SOAP release before
Axis, it's important to have really good documentation.  Things like code
migration examples, or even utilities, a detailed description of what's changed
including any and all changes to the messages themselves.  Also the Javadoc
documentation could be vastly improved.  I know it's very time consuming to go
back and add Javadoc comments, but for a production release these are needed.
In theory every public method should be documented, in practice I'd settle for
better descriptions of the methods that take collections (like vectors).  It's
very confusing for newbies to say, try and figure out how to construct a header
object.  What objects are allowed in these Vectors, and once sent how do they
get the contents back out?

* XML Parser support.  I sincerely apologize if my previous comments sounded
like a flame, there weren't intended to be so.  It's been my experience that the
XML parser of choice has been the greatest problem for new users.  With JAXP
support this should go away.  I'm glad to hear that people are using difference
parsers successfully.

* XMI support?  What is the status of XMI object support.  Last time I checked
the latest version of the XMIToolkit caused SOAP to generate messages that were
unparseable due to multiple XML declaration lines.  Someone said they were
looking into this problem and would release an updated xmisoap.jar.  I see that
there is a new xmisoap.jar.  What have people's experience been with this new
jar and IBM's latest XMIToolkit?

These are my outstanding questions.  I'm sure there are others out there that
have more.  Until these are resolved I would be against calling rc2 the final
SOAP 2.2 release.

-Jim

> Hi Jim,
>
> > This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users don't start
> to
> > migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be given
> weeks, not
> > days, to make this migration.
>
> The current candidate release is basically a cleanup up, packaged
> version of the latest nightly builds. There are still hundreds of
> people downloading the 2.1 release and getting frustrated by the
> its various issues and not benefitting from the signicant changes
> that have gone in since 2.1. Only a small group downloads nightly
> builds.
>
> The objective is to "release early and often" as Sam has put it
> before. This release is a way to get people to move to the current
> CVS snapshot more than anything else.
>
> > In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is still not
> release
> > quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at least.  The FAQ
> should
> > probably also be updated to include some of the million questions posted
> to this
> > list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1 setup
> work?".
>
> I am on the hook to update the intro page for 2.2 and I am doing it
> right now. There are two troubleshooting tables (which will be consolidated)
> which were filled in using exactly the model you described - by looking
> through the questions on soap-user and answering them. That table will
> never be complete, but I believe I got most of the bigger ones .. I will
> add more today.
>
> > Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and isn't tied to
> > Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses Crimson), or
> other
> > JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3 (running over the
> JAXP
> > APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the dependency on
> Xerces,
> > you've just removed the dependency on methods named XercesParserLiaison (A
> step
> > in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal that's been
> > advertised).
>
> Um, did you try another JAXP parser and did it fail? If not your
> criticism is not well founded. FYI- we have tried with Crimson as
> well and it works just great. If you're just conjecturing that we
> haven't done it right then you're just criticizing without basis.
>
> If you find a problem with the advertised total Xerces parser
> dependency removal then please post a bug report.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org

Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

[Jim Hazen <ji...@myplay.com>]

Hi Sanjiva,

I know that the current candidate release is a nicer version of the nightly
builds.  You guys have done a lot of great work, and I'm personally looking
forward to a 2.2 release.  However I have the following concerns:

* That the 2.2 release is being rushed, and adequate time isn't being given for
people to raise concerns with this proposed release.  Many companies, mine
included, forbid the developing for or releasing against a nightly build.  I
know that nightly builds have been around for a while and that many features and
bug fixes have been added.  I'd suggest pointing the people who are having
problems to a 2.2 release candidate.  People and companies that are using 2.1
successfully, and might be interested in the 2.2 release will need to migrate
some code, and do other tests.  There will probably be questions and concerns
with this new codebase.  These questions should be answered, and possibly the
code base changed before the actual 2.2 release.  Since rc1 and rc2 have been
out for such a short amount of time, many people haven't had the chance to do
the upgrade, migrate the code, and ask questions.

* Continuing support for SOAP 2.1 and 2.2?  I get the impression from some
messages on this list, that the developers of SOAP are interested in spending
more time developing Axis, and perhaps not supporting 2.1 due to the amount of
problems newbies seem to have with it.  If this is the case and SOAP 2.1 will
not be supported in the future, even more time should be given to the release
schedule of 2.2.  I'm not saying that the SOAP community will be abandoned by
it's developers, just asking that they either support 2.1 and 2.2 concurrently,
or they provide a clean upgrade path to 2.2 if they plan to phase out support
for 2.1.

* Interpretability between SOAP 2.1 and 2.2.  Both versions of SOAP are supposed
to fully implement the SOAP v 1.1 protocol (unless specifically stated
otherwise).  As such, unless a developer is using a feature in 2.2 not found in
2.1, SOAP 2.2 should be fully backwards compatible.  A 2.1 client should be able
to talk with a 2.2 server and the other way around.  If this is not the case I'd
consider it a severe defect.  I have been having problems with the 2.2 rc2
release, and some folks have said that there must be a version conflict, that I
was somehow using an older version of SOAP without realizing it.  While this may
be the case (and I will look into it), even if it were, it shouldn't make a
difference.  SOAP 2.2 should be able to generate messages that are identical to
those generated by SOAP 2.1.  If SOAP 2.2 generates messages that conform a
later schema, that's cool, however support still needs to be maintained for the
1999 schema, and the messages that were generated by the 2.1 client and server.

* Documentation.  Giant strides have been taken in the SOAP documentation
department, and props go out to the people who have spent the time to improve
the SOAP docs.  However if this is going to be the last SOAP release before
Axis, it's important to have really good documentation.  Things like code
migration examples, or even utilities, a detailed description of what's changed
including any and all changes to the messages themselves.  Also the Javadoc
documentation could be vastly improved.  I know it's very time consuming to go
back and add Javadoc comments, but for a production release these are needed.
In theory every public method should be documented, in practice I'd settle for
better descriptions of the methods that take collections (like vectors).  It's
very confusing for newbies to say, try and figure out how to construct a header
object.  What objects are allowed in these Vectors, and once sent how do they
get the contents back out?

* XML Parser support.  I sincerely apologize if my previous comments sounded
like a flame, there weren't intended to be so.  It's been my experience that the
XML parser of choice has been the greatest problem for new users.  With JAXP
support this should go away.  I'm glad to hear that people are using difference
parsers successfully.

* XMI support?  What is the status of XMI object support.  Last time I checked
the latest version of the XMIToolkit caused SOAP to generate messages that were
unparseable due to multiple XML declaration lines.  Someone said they were
looking into this problem and would release an updated xmisoap.jar.  I see that
there is a new xmisoap.jar.  What have people's experience been with this new
jar and IBM's latest XMIToolkit?

These are my outstanding questions.  I'm sure there are others out there that
have more.  Until these are resolved I would be against calling rc2 the final
SOAP 2.2 release.

-Jim

> Hi Jim,
>
> > This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users don't start
> to
> > migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be given
> weeks, not
> > days, to make this migration.
>
> The current candidate release is basically a cleanup up, packaged
> version of the latest nightly builds. There are still hundreds of
> people downloading the 2.1 release and getting frustrated by the
> its various issues and not benefitting from the signicant changes
> that have gone in since 2.1. Only a small group downloads nightly
> builds.
>
> The objective is to "release early and often" as Sam has put it
> before. This release is a way to get people to move to the current
> CVS snapshot more than anything else.
>
> > In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is still not
> release
> > quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at least.  The FAQ
> should
> > probably also be updated to include some of the million questions posted
> to this
> > list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1 setup
> work?".
>
> I am on the hook to update the intro page for 2.2 and I am doing it
> right now. There are two troubleshooting tables (which will be consolidated)
> which were filled in using exactly the model you described - by looking
> through the questions on soap-user and answering them. That table will
> never be complete, but I believe I got most of the bigger ones .. I will
> add more today.
>
> > Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and isn't tied to
> > Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses Crimson), or
> other
> > JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3 (running over the
> JAXP
> > APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the dependency on
> Xerces,
> > you've just removed the dependency on methods named XercesParserLiaison (A
> step
> > in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal that's been
> > advertised).
>
> Um, did you try another JAXP parser and did it fail? If not your
> criticism is not well founded. FYI- we have tried with Crimson as
> well and it works just great. If you're just conjecturing that we
> haven't done it right then you're just criticizing without basis.
>
> If you find a problem with the advertised total Xerces parser
> dependency removal then please post a bug report.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org

Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

[Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi Jim,

> This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users don't start
to
> migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be given
weeks, not
> days, to make this migration.

The current candidate release is basically a cleanup up, packaged
version of the latest nightly builds. There are still hundreds of
people downloading the 2.1 release and getting frustrated by the
its various issues and not benefitting from the signicant changes
that have gone in since 2.1. Only a small group downloads nightly
builds.

The objective is to "release early and often" as Sam has put it
before. This release is a way to get people to move to the current
CVS snapshot more than anything else.

> In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is still not
release
> quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at least.  The FAQ
should
> probably also be updated to include some of the million questions posted
to this
> list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1 setup
work?".

I am on the hook to update the intro page for 2.2 and I am doing it
right now. There are two troubleshooting tables (which will be consolidated)
which were filled in using exactly the model you described - by looking
through the questions on soap-user and answering them. That table will
never be complete, but I believe I got most of the bigger ones .. I will
add more today.

> Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and isn't tied to
> Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses Crimson), or
other
> JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3 (running over the
JAXP
> APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the dependency on
Xerces,
> you've just removed the dependency on methods named XercesParserLiaison (A
step
> in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal that's been
> advertised).

Um, did you try another JAXP parser and did it fail? If not your
criticism is not well founded. FYI- we have tried with Crimson as
well and it works just great. If you're just conjecturing that we
haven't done it right then you're just criticizing without basis.

If you find a problem with the advertised total Xerces parser
dependency removal then please post a bug report.

Sanjiva.

Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

[Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi Jim,

> This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users don't start
to
> migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be given
weeks, not
> days, to make this migration.

The current candidate release is basically a cleanup up, packaged
version of the latest nightly builds. There are still hundreds of
people downloading the 2.1 release and getting frustrated by the
its various issues and not benefitting from the signicant changes
that have gone in since 2.1. Only a small group downloads nightly
builds.

The objective is to "release early and often" as Sam has put it
before. This release is a way to get people to move to the current
CVS snapshot more than anything else.

> In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is still not
release
> quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at least.  The FAQ
should
> probably also be updated to include some of the million questions posted
to this
> list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1 setup
work?".

I am on the hook to update the intro page for 2.2 and I am doing it
right now. There are two troubleshooting tables (which will be consolidated)
which were filled in using exactly the model you described - by looking
through the questions on soap-user and answering them. That table will
never be complete, but I believe I got most of the bigger ones .. I will
add more today.

> Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and isn't tied to
> Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses Crimson), or
other
> JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3 (running over the
JAXP
> APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the dependency on
Xerces,
> you've just removed the dependency on methods named XercesParserLiaison (A
step
> in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal that's been
> advertised).

Um, did you try another JAXP parser and did it fail? If not your
criticism is not well founded. FYI- we have tried with Crimson as
well and it works just great. If you're just conjecturing that we
haven't done it right then you're just criticizing without basis.

If you find a problem with the advertised total Xerces parser
dependency removal then please post a bug report.

Sanjiva.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org

Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

[Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi Jim,

> This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users don't start
to
> migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be given
weeks, not
> days, to make this migration.

The current candidate release is basically a cleanup up, packaged
version of the latest nightly builds. There are still hundreds of
people downloading the 2.1 release and getting frustrated by the
its various issues and not benefitting from the signicant changes
that have gone in since 2.1. Only a small group downloads nightly
builds.

The objective is to "release early and often" as Sam has put it
before. This release is a way to get people to move to the current
CVS snapshot more than anything else.

> In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is still not
release
> quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at least.  The FAQ
should
> probably also be updated to include some of the million questions posted
to this
> list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1 setup
work?".

I am on the hook to update the intro page for 2.2 and I am doing it
right now. There are two troubleshooting tables (which will be consolidated)
which were filled in using exactly the model you described - by looking
through the questions on soap-user and answering them. That table will
never be complete, but I believe I got most of the bigger ones .. I will
add more today.

> Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and isn't tied to
> Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses Crimson), or
other
> JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3 (running over the
JAXP
> APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the dependency on
Xerces,
> you've just removed the dependency on methods named XercesParserLiaison (A
step
> in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal that's been
> advertised).

Um, did you try another JAXP parser and did it fail? If not your
criticism is not well founded. FYI- we have tried with Crimson as
well and it works just great. If you're just conjecturing that we
haven't done it right then you're just criticizing without basis.

If you find a problem with the advertised total Xerces parser
dependency removal then please post a bug report.

Sanjiva.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org

RE: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

["Matthew J. Duftler" <du...@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi Jim,

I ran the code successfully on both the client and the server with Crimson.
And by "the code", I mean all the samples, and several additional test cases
I have buried on my machine.

Thanks,
-Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jhazen@jhazen-t20.corp.myplay.com
> [mailto:jhazen@jhazen-t20.corp.myplay.com]On Behalf Of Jim Hazen
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 8:41 PM
> To: soap-user@xml.apache.org
> Cc: soap-dev
> Subject: Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted
>
>
> This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users
> don't start to
> migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be
> given weeks, not
> days, to make this migration.
>
> In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is
> still not release
> quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at least.
> The FAQ should
> probably also be updated to include some of the million questions
> posted to this
> list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1
> setup work?".
>
> Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and isn't tied to
> Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses
> Crimson), or other
> JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3 (running
> over the JAXP
> APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the
> dependency on Xerces,
> you've just removed the dependency on methods named
> XercesParserLiaison (A step
> in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal that's been
> advertised).
>
> -Jim
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org

RE: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

["Matthew J. Duftler" <du...@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi Jim,

I ran the code successfully on both the client and the server with Crimson.
And by "the code", I mean all the samples, and several additional test cases
I have buried on my machine.

Thanks,
-Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jhazen@jhazen-t20.corp.myplay.com
> [mailto:jhazen@jhazen-t20.corp.myplay.com]On Behalf Of Jim Hazen
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 8:41 PM
> To: soap-user@xml.apache.org
> Cc: soap-dev
> Subject: Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted
>
>
> This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users
> don't start to
> migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be
> given weeks, not
> days, to make this migration.
>
> In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is
> still not release
> quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at least.
> The FAQ should
> probably also be updated to include some of the million questions
> posted to this
> list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1
> setup work?".
>
> Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and isn't tied to
> Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses
> Crimson), or other
> JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3 (running
> over the JAXP
> APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the
> dependency on Xerces,
> you've just removed the dependency on methods named
> XercesParserLiaison (A step
> in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal that's been
> advertised).
>
> -Jim
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org
>

RE: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

["Matthew J. Duftler" <du...@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi Jim,

I ran the code successfully on both the client and the server with Crimson.
And by "the code", I mean all the samples, and several additional test cases
I have buried on my machine.

Thanks,
-Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jhazen@jhazen-t20.corp.myplay.com
> [mailto:jhazen@jhazen-t20.corp.myplay.com]On Behalf Of Jim Hazen
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 8:41 PM
> To: soap-user@xml.apache.org
> Cc: soap-dev
> Subject: Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted
>
>
> This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users
> don't start to
> migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be
> given weeks, not
> days, to make this migration.
>
> In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is
> still not release
> quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at least.
> The FAQ should
> probably also be updated to include some of the million questions
> posted to this
> list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1
> setup work?".
>
> Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and isn't tied to
> Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses
> Crimson), or other
> JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3 (running
> over the JAXP
> APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the
> dependency on Xerces,
> you've just removed the dependency on methods named
> XercesParserLiaison (A step
> in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal that's been
> advertised).
>
> -Jim
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org

Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

[Jim Hazen <ji...@myplay.com>]

This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users don't start to
migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be given weeks, not
days, to make this migration.

In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is still not release
quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at least.  The FAQ should
probably also be updated to include some of the million questions posted to this
list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1 setup work?".

Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and isn't tied to
Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses Crimson), or other
JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3 (running over the JAXP
APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the dependency on Xerces,
you've just removed the dependency on methods named XercesParserLiaison (A step
in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal that's been
advertised).

-Jim

Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

[Jim Hazen <ji...@myplay.com>]

This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users don't start to
migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be given weeks, not
days, to make this migration.

In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is still not release
quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at least.  The FAQ should
probably also be updated to include some of the million questions posted to this
list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1 setup work?".

Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and isn't tied to
Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses Crimson), or other
JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3 (running over the JAXP
APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the dependency on Xerces,
you've just removed the dependency on methods named XercesParserLiaison (A step
in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal that's been
advertised).

-Jim


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org

Re: Apache SOAP Version 2.2 Release Candidate 2 posted

[Jim Hazen <ji...@myplay.com>]

This seems to be way too fast a release schedule.  Many users don't start to
migrate to a new platform until at least rc1.  People should be given weeks, not
days, to make this migration.

In addition the state of the documentation, while improved is still not release
quality.  The intro page needs to be updated for 2.2 at least.  The FAQ should
probably also be updated to include some of the million questions posted to this
list, including but not limited to "Why doesn't my Xerces 1.3.1 setup work?".

Also when you say that SOAP 2.2 now fully supports JAXP and isn't tied to
Xerces, has this been tested against the JAXP RI (which uses Crimson), or other
JAXP compliant parsers.  If you still need Xerces 1.2.3 (running over the JAXP
APIs) to run properly, then you really haven't removed the dependency on Xerces,
you've just removed the dependency on methods named XercesParserLiaison (A step
in the right direction, but not the total dependency removal that's been
advertised).

-Jim


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: soap-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: soap-user-help@xml.apache.org