Re: [uddi-spec] Basic Profile Version 1.0 - Working Group Draft

[Alok Srivastava <Alok.Z.Srivastava@oracle.com>]

Bob/Daniel,

Oracle also has an implementation for SOAP and UDDIv2. Apart from the patch
for the existing code (after approval) this is really not an implementation
issue for us either and since we will need to support UTF-16 sometime in
future anyway, I would like to suggest to get this errata issued for UDDIv2
and UDDIv3 as soon as we possibly can. I believe that this will eliminate a
lot of issues for Web services users in general and achieve WS-I basic
profile compliance in a timely fashion.

Hope this helps the discussion.

Regards,
Alok
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Feygin" <feygin@unitspace.com>
To: "'Bob Atkinson'" <bobatk@Exchange.Microsoft.com>;
<uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: "'Keisuke Kibakura'" <kibakura@jp.fujitsu.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:06 AM
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Basic Profile Version 1.0 - Working Group Draft


| Bob,
|
| I do not see how there is any impact on UDDI testing.  All SOAP
| processors must support UTF-16 by implication that all XML processors
| are required to support UTF-16 and SOAP is an XML protocol.  By
| interoperability testing your SOAP processors you are testing that all
| Web services and clients using them are interoperable.
|
| There can only be an interoperability testing issue if some UDDI
| registry implementation provides its own SOAP processor.  I am not aware
| of any such implementations and find them to be somewhat unlikely.
|
| Anne Thomas Manes confirmed during the teleconference that this was a
| non-issue for Systinet, which has both a UDDI registry product and a
| SOAP implementation.  I am sure that if you research other existing
| implementations you will find that it is similarly a non-issue for them,
| since encoding support is delegated down to the XML processor and each
| compliant XML processor is required to support both UTF-8 and UTF-16.
|
| Regards,
| Daniel
|
|
| > -----Original Message-----
| > From: Bob Atkinson [mailto:bobatk@Exchange.Microsoft.com]
| > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:11 AM
| > To: Daniel Feygin; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
| > Cc: Keisuke Kibakura
| > Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Basic Profile Version 1.0 - Working
| > Group Draft
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > -----Original Message-----
| > From: Daniel Feygin [mailto:feygin@unitspace.com]
| > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 1:59 AM
| > To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
| > Cc: 'Keisuke Kibakura'
| > Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Basic Profile Version 1.0 - Working
| > Group Draft
| >
| > Keisuke,
| >
| > It appears that there is no rationale behind UDDI
| > specifications' restriction on messages being expressed in UTF-8,
| >
| > [rga]
| > I disagree with that perspective: one important rationale is
| > the reduction by a factor of four of the amount of
| > node-to-node testing that must occur.
| >
| >
| > ----------------------------------------------------------------
| > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
| > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
| >
|
|
| ----------------------------------------------------------------
| To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
| manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
|