Re: [Openefm-development] Re: OpenEFM question

[Jim B. <be...@co...>]

On Mar 3, 2005, at 7:16 AM, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 14:44 -0800, Jason Van Cleve wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>> things as simple as possible.  Even SOAP, we find, is superfluous.
>>> Would you just shove the XML through a socket directly, or what?
>>
>> No, we like XML over HTTP for this stuff.  (Personally, I think the
>> existing SOAP with attachments interface is best, because that allows
>> for better handling of binaries.  But .NET has problems with it.)
>
> The last time we visited this subject, we determined that in-lining the
> data was the only platform independent way to do it. Java/SUN had one
> standard for soap with attachments and MS(VB6) had another involving
> MIME/Types or some such thing. Can't really remember the details.

Hah!  We dealt with this exact problem during the the OXCI project.  It 
was huge headache.  I'm sure Jason could expound almost endlessly on 
how annoying these issues were.

... Also ...

>
>> I'm just trying to boil down for our competitors/detractors what kind
>> of API they will be able to use with us. Since y'all seem to be the
>> biggest open source player in the field, I'd like to be able to say
>> "If we don't use OpenEFM, then we will at least adhere to their API."
>> Which brings me to another question. Who else is out their in the open
>> source EFM world worth exploring. You all make the most noise, So I've
>> been hoping to ride on your coattails a little, when dealing with the
>> BIG BOYS.
>
> Mr. Beard, can you address this?

The only other Open Source EFM that I'm aware of was implemented by the 
good folks at the National Center for State Courts.  They developed an 
EFM called inCounter.  It is a LAMP project.  The goal of inCounter was 
to develop a reference implementation, or proof of concept.  It was not 
necessarily meant to be a production system.  I am not aware of any 
continued development or support of that application.  Jim McMillan 
would be the person to speak to at NCSC about that project.  He is 
generally a good resource about these types of projects.

In general my advice would be to pick a XML specification ( 2GEFS or 
Legal XML 1.1 ) and stick as closely to it as possible.  The XML 
specification really ends up being the API since all messages are sent 
using the spec.  2GEFS is the most mature.  This will let you be able 
to tell other companies that might want to file exactly what the 
filings should look like.  Several implementations in California are 
currently being completed so the 2GEFS specifications has gone through 
deployed, real world testing.

Legal XML may soon ( 2-4 months? ) deliver a standard that would 
compete with 2GEFS.  However it will not be mature as it will not have 
undergone deployed testing.  Also it will be based on the GJXDM which 
is confusing and hard to use, to say the least..

If you decide you want to use OpenEFM we would be happy to help you in 
any way we can.


>
>>
>> --Jason
>> counterclaim
> I'll defend to the death your right to say that, but I never said I'd
> listen to it! -- Tom Galloway with apologies to Voltaire
>
Jim Beard
counterclaim.com, Inc
http://www.counterclaim.com
http://openefm.sourceforge.net
(800) 264-8145