"cooler head?" ok...I'll go fishing in the headwaters of the Chesapeake Bay over the weekend and see if that helps....
Mark -----Original Message----- From: Ben Souther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 4:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Project from hell? We just wrote a fairly large app using Axis without ever needing to write a line of XML. Take another look at the Axis tutorials on Monday, with a cooler head. Here is another one that I thought was pretty straight forward: http://javaboutique.internet.com/tutorials/Axis/index.html On Friday 14 May 2004 04:23 pm, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Let's try this...if you show up on the IRC channel on monday, i'll > walk u through it. picky any freenode server > (http://www.freenode.net/irc_servers.shtml) channel is #apache-axis. > There are other that hang out there as well who you can ask questions. > > -- dims > > > > > On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:17:31 -0400, Galbreath, Mark A > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > well....sheeeit! I am trying to find the EASIEST solution - screw > > writing WSDLs and any other XML files! > > > > I tried the Sun tutorial, but it would a fanatic 12 weeks to go through > > that one. > > > > I tried the Axis tutorial and it made no REAL WORLD sense at all. > > > > I tried the Oracle JDeveloper and JBuilder Webservices modules and they > > suck. > > > > I DO NOT WANT TO WRITE XML - THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!! > > > > What's the solution? I have pressure all over me to create Web services > > for every f*cking application in the ..... department. What gives? It > > seems to me that Web services has been way totally overhyped and it > > delivers nothing of value. > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 1:48 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Project from hell? > > > > #1: > > > > You must be joking! There are more than 2000 DIFFERENT elements and > > complex types. The problems tend to lie within the generated code and are > > not obvious until you try to use that code...then you find that it > > doesn't work. I wasted way too much time trying make changes to the > > Axis-generated code before giving up. I concluded that Axis was an order > > of magnitude away from where I needed it to be in terms of complex > > payloads (though that perception might have been biased by the enormity > > of the SCS XML Schema). So I use Axis for connectivity (it's great at > > this, of course) and insert XML documents (that I generate) as > > document-literal content. > > > > Well, okay, I'll check it out over the weekend and file a bug report :-) > > > > #2: > > > > No. I understand that nowadays some folks use Castor in cases like this. > > Three years ago my customers needed something like a JAXB that supports > > the whole of XML Schema and connected to databases. There wasn't anything > > then so I wrote XchainJ. This product is now in version 2.3 and runs as a > > fully integrated Eclipse Plugin. This isn't a commercial plug though > > because, oddly enough, I find life is easier if I don't sell it! XchainJ > > is great for really complex XML but, unfortunately, it has been my > > experience that people who have a requirement for this are not the sort > > of people who have the technical expertise to use it! They tend to be > > scientists not Java programmers. I could ramble on at length about user > > perceptions, etc. but I won't. When I work face-to-face with customers > > they really appreciate the product and either use it themselves or pay me > > to use it. Typically, I can turn around a project that would take a week > > using Castor, JAXB, etc. in two or three hours with XchainJ (it does > > XML/Java/DBMS interoperability). The whole process of dealing with > > potential customers in other countries and over the Internet is more > > trouble than it's worth. > > > > Interestingly, I presented XchainJ to the technical director of a company > > that sells Java software (on the basis that they could do the marketing, > > etc.). The guy thought the product was great but found he was unable to > > explain to his marketing folk what it did in terms that they could > > understand! If they are not experts, people seem to get fogged beyond a > > certain level of complexity. > > > > It's a crazy situation: we have XML Schema that scientists are running > > with and producing very complex structures BUT they don't have the > > expertise to implement solutions. Then there's the computer industry > > that, while populated with developers who can work on complex projects > > and after great effort can produce solutions, has mainstream tool vendors > > that are completely out of touch with anything other than trivial XML! > > Some commercial products have been written by programmers who were under > > the impression that there will only ever be one XML Schema document that > > targets a given namespace. They generate error like "I've encountered > > this namespace before, what are you giving it to me again for!". Still > > other won't go beyond a maximum of just one XML Schema document > > referenced from WSDL. GML comprises 27 XML Schema documents that target > > the GML namespace (plus others for xlink, etc.) (and GML is a basis > > schema that users are _intended_ to incorporate as a component of other > > schemas). > > > > An NGO approached me a year ago with a project that they had only a month > > to complete. It uses the CSDGM DTD (a.k.a. FGDC). They went to a big > > software development company before they approached me and were told (i) > > something that complex couldn't be done and (ii) if it could be done > > there's no way it could be done within a month. Using XchainJ 1.1, I > > completed the entire project in one day. Had I had XchainJ 2.3 then, it > > would have taken half a day. > > > > In a similar vein, my customers currently need XML Schema support in > > rich-clients. The sort of support that doesn't exist today. They are > > going to get it in XchainJ 3.x. As I said earlier, there's a disconnect > > between the complexity supported by the computer software industry and > > the complexity required by scientists. While the Eclipse folks are > > working on SWT-designer support, I'm working on 'XML Schema / SWT > > rich-client with connections to controlled content web services plus > > authentication, authorization, XML document management, etc.' support in > > a generic tool. An order of magnitude disparity. > > > > Now, if only I was a marketeer instead of a programmer... :-) > > > > Warmest regards, > > > > Jeff > > > > Cogent Logic Corporation > > Toronto, Canada > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Davanum Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 12:18 PM > > Subject: Re: Project from hell? > > > > > A few questions: > > > > > > #1: Can you please open a bug report with a pointer to the schema that > > > > fails? > > > > > #2: Did you try using any JAXB implementation against the schema? > > > > > > thanks, > > > dims > > > > > > On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:03:14 -0400, Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > On a similar note, there's a disconnect between the capabilities of > > > > tools > > > > > > created by the software industry and the requirements of the > > > > scientific community. > > > > > > > > I have just completed a particular type of Open GIS Consortium (OGC) > > > > web service called a Sensor Collection Service. The XML Schema > > > > referenced > > > > from > > > > > > the WSDL file comprises 54 XML Schema documents spanning 15 > > > > namespaces. > > > > Not > > > > > > only did the Axis bean code baulk at this but, when I had completed > > > > the project, clients found that the .NET tools couldn't handle > > > > anything like > > > > the > > > > > > complexity of the SCS XML Schema. Consequently, I supplied 'client > > > > software'. > > > > > > > > The originators of SOAP are conning the software world and no one > > > > seems > > > > to > > > > > > mind! > > > > > > > > If it's legitimate to distribute platform-independent data (XML) it > > > > must > > > > be > > > > > > legitimate to distribute the program logic that uses that data. If > > > > only > > > > we > > > > > > had a platform-independent way to deliver program logic! > > > > > > > > Forcing web service clients, as a matter of fiat, to write their own > > > > program > > > > > > logic is the antithesis of OOP: interfaces, inheritance, polymorphism > > > > all > > > > > > exits to promote reuse. Reuse is the Holy Grail of software > > > > development. > > > > > > > > It could be argued that each client has their own needs and so it's > > > > not possible to write generic client-side code. Such an argument is > > > > false. > > > > The > > > > > > fact that XML Schemas are used to formalise the data transmitted > > > > within > > > > SOAP > > > > > > envelopes means that each web service is necessarily > > > > application-specific > > > > > > and, as such, is tractable to low-level client code. Such code > > > > exposes > > > > data > > > > > > (in the form of XML, if appropriate) that can then be used in > > > > whatever > > > > way > > > > > > the ultimate consumer-code requires. > > > > > > > > I recently wrote a web service for the Government of Canada that > > > > provided > > > > > > document-literal content in the form of Web Ontology Language (OWL). > > > > Everyone was pleased with the outcome and loved the OWL > > > > implementation > > > > BUT > > > > > > the first thing they did was to nominate someone to write a generic > > > > client > > > > > > that dealt with the XML and provided the desired content through a > > > > Java component that everyone could use/reuse. Hey, that's an idea...I > > > > wonder > > > > if > > > > > > we could supply Java client-side code with our web services. That > > > > way, > > > > the > > > > > > .NET folks and all other non-Java folks could continue to do what > > > > they > > > > do > > > > > > and the sane software developers can get back to the preferred > > > > paradigm > > > > of > > > > > > using portable code. > > > > > > > > XML and Java go together. Sun and all other interested parties seem > > > > to > > > > be > > > > > > blind to the fact that making portable client-side code an integrated > > > > web > > > > > > service deliverable would make those services far more viable. Not > > > > everyone > > > > > > wants to get into WSDL, etc. when they could simply use a bean! SOAP > > > > and > > > > web > > > > > > services are infrastructure. Folks who use my web services want > > > > turnkey solutions. For them it's about access to scientific data. > > > > They want to operate at a higher level of abstraction than SOAP! > > > > > > > > Warmest regards, > > > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > Cogent Logic Corporation > > > > > > > > Toronto, Canada > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Galbreath, Mark A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:22 AM > > > > Subject: RE: Project from hell? > > > > > > > > > EXACTOMUDO! :-( > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Sherman, Dennis (END-CHI) > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 > > > > > 9:12 AM > > > > > > > > > > Your task sounds to me suspiciously like someone at an executive > > > > > level having heard about web services, and thinking they've found > > > > > the silver bullet to all their problems.
<<application/ms-tnef>>
