Re: [soapbuilders] Re: ANN: White Mesa DIME endpoints updated

Hi Simon,

Ok, thanks!

BTW, is there any interest out there in testing the DIME "options" feature?
Of course a test case would have to be defined. More generally, at the
moment I can think of a couple of uses:

1) The application is allowed to set a standardized "option" on a payload
prior to passing it off to the DIME parser. The receiving application may
then access the option data and act upon it. This might be useful if info
about a payload needs to be sent which can't go in the primary SOAP message,
perhaps because the message schema doesn't accomodate it, and isn't implied
by the TYPE_T. An option of this sort might appear only on the first record
of a payload.

2) The sending and receiving DIME parsers recognize standardized options
which they implement for their own purposes, independently of the
application. An option of this sort might appear in every record of the
payload concerned, it might not. For DIME package debugging purposes this
kind of thing might be useful.

Anyway, I'm thinking of extending the Payload class interface here to allow
the application to read/write "options" to a payload (first record only).
The second type might be best left as something to be hard wired into DIME
parsers,  but perhaps enabled/disabled by the app. I sense that the options
feature would be useful to apps that aren't using SOAP at all, but rather
passing payloads over, say, TCP using DIME.

Any thoughts on this, anyone?

RC

> Hi

> I've tested both the JSOAP and WM endpoints with a revised PocketSOAP
> client, both look good.

> Cheers
> Simon
> www.pocketsoap.com