Menu
▾
▴
[Cart-users] RE: Cart-users digest, Vol 1 #26 - 4 msgs
|
From: Jeffery A. B. <jb...@ea...> - 2004-11-11 00:36:38
|
Dave wrote: >Rigorous testing digest authentication would be nice. I can't tell you how >many times I get questions regarding digest auth and problems some client >writers tend to have. This is part of the reason we swapped out our custom code for HttpClient for our client API. Do you see this as a client problem or a server problem? And any specifics? Things we have run into include: stale nounce - (We sent a patch to HttpClient fixing this.) missing qop confusion about when cookies are returned -----Original Message----- From: car...@li... [mailto:car...@li...] On Behalf Of car...@li... Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:07 PM To: car...@li... Subject: Cart-users digest, Vol 1 #26 - 4 msgs Send Cart-users mailing list submissions to car...@li... To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cart-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to car...@li... You can reach the person managing the list at car...@li... When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Cart-users digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Compliance Tests (Jeffery A. Brush) 2. Re: Compliance Tests (Dave Dribin) 3. Re: Compliance Tests (David Steinbrunner) 4. RE: Compliance Tests (Jeffery A. Brush) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "Jeffery A. Brush" <jb...@ea...> To: <car...@li...> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:17:23 -0500 Subject: [Cart-users] Compliance Tests Hi all, NAR has asked Avantia to "raiser the bar" on RETS compliance tests and we're looking for issues from users familiar with RETS Clients and Servers, which we can roll into one of the next rounds of RETS tests. The issues that have been recently mentioned on this list include: 1. Bad case for capability url keys. 2. Undocumented capability url keys. 3. Incorrect logout response. 4. Bad xml in the search results. (This one is tricky to test for as we only see a subset of content.) If anyone has anything else they would like to see tested for on the server or client side, please let me know and I'll try to get it added to the test suite. Thanks, Jeff Brush Avantia, Inc. jb...@ea... --__--__-- Message: 2 From: Dave Dribin <dr...@cr...> Subject: Re: [Cart-users] Compliance Tests Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:21:43 -0600 To: <car...@li...> <car...@li...> <car...@li...> On Nov 9, 2004, at 10:17 AM, Jeffery A. Brush wrote: > Hi all, > > NAR has asked Avantia to "raiser the bar" on RETS compliance tests and > we're > looking for issues from users familiar with RETS Clients and Servers, > which > we can roll into one of the next rounds of RETS tests. Excellent! > The issues that have been recently mentioned on this list include: > 1. Bad case for capability url keys. > 2. Undocumented capability url keys. > 3. Incorrect logout response. > 4. Bad xml in the search results. > (This one is tricky to test for as we only see a subset of content.) As far as #4 goes... I wish we could test this somehow. Is there a way to force servers to pre-load some known data? Maybe utilize this for servers that support standard names or something? > If anyone has anything else they would like to see tested for on the > server > or client side, please let me know and I'll try to get it added to the > test > suite. Rigorous testing digest authentication would be nice. I can't tell you how many times I get questions regarding digest auth and problems some client writers tend to have. -Dave --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:21:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [Cart-users] Compliance Tests From: David Steinbrunner <ca...@po...> To: "Jeffery A. Brush" <jb...@ea...>, <car...@li...> > Hi all, > > NAR has asked Avantia to "raiser the bar" on RETS compliance tests and we're > looking for issues from users familiar with RETS Clients and Servers, which > we can roll into one of the next rounds of RETS tests. > > The issues that have been recently mentioned on this list include: > 1. Bad case for capability url keys. > 2. Undocumented capability url keys. > 3. Incorrect logout response. > 4. Bad xml in the search results. > (This one is tricky to test for as we only see a subset of content.) > > If anyone has anything else they would like to see tested for on the server > or client side, please let me know and I'll try to get it added to the test > suite. My company currently has two big issues with RETS. The biggest would be the lack of support for standard names. Our client currently supports two MLS vendors servers which requires us to have large blocks of code to handle the same data but with different names because of the lack of standard names or different "standard" names for the same thing by different vendors. We are currently looking to add support for more MLS vendors but do not look forward to having to deal with more inconsistent naming conventions. The second is a specific issue with one vendor where results in STANDARD-XML do not give us all the data fields so we have to use COMPACT. The problem is that COMPACT is sent as content-type 'text/plain' without encoded data rather than content-type 'text/xml' with encoded data, as you would expect from an XML based system. As with issue 4 above this will make any XML parser 'blow chunks' unless you add special handling for such cases. Better compliance tests are greatly needed to make RETS more approachable, easier to create and maintain. Thanks for the opportunity to unload that on the list ;-P -- David Steinbrunner MFM Communication Software, Inc. http://www.mfm.com --__--__-- Message: 4 From: "Jeffery A. Brush" <jb...@ea...> To: <car...@li...> Subject: RE: [Cart-users] Compliance Tests Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:48:29 -0500 Hello David, Thanks for your response! I actually have some good news for you regarding your issues and our planned compliance testing. Standard Names support (or lack thereof) has been a big concern in the RETS community. As such, compliance tests are requiring that servers support a defined subset of standard names going forward. This is already in progress. Requiring mapping more fields to standard-xml is the next step after standard names support. We are going to doublecheck that standard names support extends to the mapping of those standard names within the appropriate standard-xml elements. One additional note about COMPACT: if you are accessing a 1.5 server, it is required that ALL responses be well-formed XML, i.e., have a content type of text/xml AND be parsed by an XML parser. The COMPACT responses from those servers should be adhering to this or they are already NOT RETS compliant. --Jeff -----Original Message----- From: David Steinbrunner [mailto:ca...@po...] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 4:22 PM To: Jeffery A. Brush; car...@li... Subject: Re: [Cart-users] Compliance Tests > Hi all, > > NAR has asked Avantia to "raiser the bar" on RETS compliance tests and we're > looking for issues from users familiar with RETS Clients and Servers, which > we can roll into one of the next rounds of RETS tests. > > The issues that have been recently mentioned on this list include: > 1. Bad case for capability url keys. > 2. Undocumented capability url keys. > 3. Incorrect logout response. > 4. Bad xml in the search results. > (This one is tricky to test for as we only see a subset of content.) > > If anyone has anything else they would like to see tested for on the server > or client side, please let me know and I'll try to get it added to the test > suite. My company currently has two big issues with RETS. The biggest would be the lack of support for standard names. Our client currently supports two MLS vendors servers which requires us to have large blocks of code to handle the same data but with different names because of the lack of standard names or different "standard" names for the same thing by different vendors. We are currently looking to add support for more MLS vendors but do not look forward to having to deal with more inconsistent naming conventions. The second is a specific issue with one vendor where results in STANDARD-XML do not give us all the data fields so we have to use COMPACT. The problem is that COMPACT is sent as content-type 'text/plain' without encoded data rather than content-type 'text/xml' with encoded data, as you would expect from an XML based system. As with issue 4 above this will make any XML parser 'blow chunks' unless you add special handling for such cases. Better compliance tests are greatly needed to make RETS more approachable, easier to create and maintain. Thanks for the opportunity to unload that on the list ;-P -- David Steinbrunner MFM Communication Software, Inc. http://www.mfm.com --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Cart-users mailing list Car...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cart-users End of Cart-users Digest |
