From: Paul K. <pau...@ya...> - 2004-10-17 20:26:10
|
Mark, --- Mark Fuller <ami...@ya...> wrote: > I've used the v2 support from the CVS with 60a. It > works fine. I'll try it as distributed with the beta > of 65. Regarding v3 support, I haven't had access to a > v3 server until lately. But, from reading the v3 specs > I've got a feeling UDDI::Lite will need some > rethinking to handle some new features in v3. We'll > have to tackle that later. Not a big deal because v3 > servers like Systinet's should be able to handle v2 > and resolve the differences (like required fields in > v3). Just let us know what you think needs to be done/rethought. Given this I won't be implementing any changes in handling non-UDDI namespaces (to be used in v3) described here http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=4204695&forum_id=34563 > I noticed the UDDI::Lite documentation Byrne posted > doesn't mention how to select v1, 2 or 3. Do you guys > want to update it to address the way the module was > changed? Or, do you want me to? I think the only > difference was the "use" pragma. As far as I remember it's a matter of using uddiversion parameter with 'use UDDI::Lite'. Either of us can come up with one or two examples showing that. It would be great if you could write a working example with a real v2 server. We probably need to move this thread to soaplite-devel list (cc-ed). Paul. |