* Lukas Smith wrote:
> I don't know the names of the authors of the other soap/xml-rpc
> implementations but it would probably be a good idea to talk to them as
> well.
Have a look at http://dietrich.ganx4.com/ - seems to be one
of the best SOAP/WSDL/UDDI implementations and will be the
core of A
ECTED]
___
> -Original Message-
> From: brad lafountain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Built-in SOAP based Web Services
support(wasRe:PHP
> 5)
>
> Hello all who ha
Hello all who have been following this thread..
I just found it.. i have been working on a php/soap extension
for a while now.. and it's nearing completion..
it's is fully functional right now im just adding "options" and
features. It's damn fast too :) i benchmarked it agains some other
soap imp
Hello,
Lukas Smith wrote:
>
> Well all of these new w3c goodies are still in development but yes there
> are "final" specs similar to those 0.6 stable open source releases that
> tons of people use in production
I think that you should see draft versions as HTML draft version. HTML
was already
At 00:48 03/01/2002, Joao Prado Maia wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>
> > Lukas Smith wrote:
> > > But I think we have pitched the need for SOAP enough now :-)
> >
> > What's wrong with the SOAP implementation provided by ext/xmlrpc?
> >
> > Rumour has it, by the way, t
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Lukas Smith wrote:
> > But I think we have pitched the need for SOAP enough now :-)
>
> What's wrong with the SOAP implementation provided by ext/xmlrpc?
>
> Rumour has it, by the way, that a nice PEAR class is underway that
> simplifies the
Lukas Smith wrote:
> But I think we have pitched the need for SOAP enough now :-)
What's wrong with the SOAP implementation provided by ext/xmlrpc?
Rumour has it, by the way, that a nice PEAR class is underway that
simplifies the use of this extension.
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://se
Hello,
>until PHP developers stop being stubborn and stop inventing excuses
> for not adding it to PHP.
The question is more "when ?" instead of "Why ?", "when" included a real extension and
fully documented.
Include extensions in an experimental/dev way without any informations except the
sou
PROTECTED]
___
> -Original Message-
> From: Manuel Lemos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Built-in SOAP based Web Services
support(wasRe:PHP
> 5)
>
> Hello,
>
> James Cox wro
Hello,
James Cox wrote:
>
> No, this thread is not going anywhere because web services as defined by the
> non-standards compliant microsoft are still definining what they are doing
> with web services, (it's only in beta 2) and everyone is insensitive to each
> other.
I think you are confusing
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Lukas Smith wrote:
> Well the problem is that people will want to grow with the specs and use
> part of the specs now ...
>
> And in the end they will use the tool that they grew with and they will
> use the tool that is not vapourware when the spec is finalized
>
> Anyways S
EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
> -Original Message-
> From: James Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:11 PM
> To: Php-Dev
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Built-in SOAP based Web Services
support(wasRe:PHP
> 5)
>
> The flip side:
>
> I am us
IL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Built-in SOAP based Web Services
> support(wasRe:PHP 5)
>
>
> Well the problem is that people will want to grow with the specs and use
> part of the specs now ...
>
&
ybnet.de [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
> -Original Message-
> From: James Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Built-in SOAP based Web Services
support(wasRe:PHP
> 5)
gt; Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Built-in SOAP based Web Services
> support(wasRe:PHP 5)
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This thread is not going anywhere because you continue to be insensitive
> to everything I tell you.
>
>
> Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > At 05:28 02/01/2002,
Hello,
This thread is not going anywhere because you continue to be insensitive
to everything I tell you.
Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> At 05:28 02/01/2002, Manuel Lemos wrote:
> > > (b) If we do it, it'll go on leaking as it does today
> >
> >False, if you do it you will give one less reason for us
I think this sub-thread is a wonderful candidate for being taken offline.
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 05:28 02/01/2002, Manuel Lemos wrote:
>
>> > (b) If we do it, it'll go on leaking as it does today
>>
>> False, if you do it you will give one less reason for users to drop PHP.
>
>
> That sentence
At 05:28 02/01/2002, Manuel Lemos wrote:
> > (b) If we do it, it'll go on leaking as it does today
>
>False, if you do it you will give one less reason for users to drop PHP.
That sentence MEANS that though. Maybe you weren't sure of what you were
saying, but saying "We have to do X in order to
Hello,
Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> At 09:13 PM 1/1/2002 -0200, Manuel Lemos wrote:
> >I already have some SOAP components written in this meta-language. If I
> >work on something that would make it easier to provide and consume Web
> >servers (and I have been doing some work), I will invest my time
Hello,
Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> At 00:34 02/01/2002, Manuel Lemos wrote:
> >What you are saying is that when I make a suggestion people become
> >emotional and work very hard to raise as much objections as they can
> >instead of staying rational and try to see the benefits of the
> >suggestion.
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
