Am not sure if you are kidding or serious....Anyways, here's the complete list of IRC channels that various apache projects use - http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IrcChannels
-- dims On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:40:22 -0400, Galbreath, Mark A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > cool...I belong to a close-knit group of hackers at http://www.darkmyst.org > on #funkycodemonkey > > but I will post your URL on there.... > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 4:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Project from hell? > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
