RT SOAP and Java interface

Hello!
Two questions:

1.)
I’d like to build a Java interface for RT3 (since I could use it in a
small project). I’m looking into interfacing for quite a while now and
the only feasable way seems to be the rt-soap server.
I’m having the problem that I can’t find a WSDL file for the interface
and my Perl knowledge is too small to deduce it from the source. A
couple of weeks ago I saw a short thread regarding just this WSDL file;
but I missed what happend to it.
Any help regarding the WSDL or any other way to interface would be
greatly appreciated. :slight_smile:

2.)
Our client has granted us the right to release the Java interface
classes resulting form this project to open source. Two (sub-)
questions: a) Is the RT comunity interested in such classes? b) What
licence would be preferred (I would suggest LGPL)?

Thanks

Sebastian

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

  • Sebastian Cramer [2003-07-11 09:45]:

I’d like to build a Java interface for RT3 (since I could use it in a
small project). I’m looking into interfacing for quite a while now and
the only feasable way seems to be the rt-soap server.

You might also want to take a look at the CLI (when it appear) – it
will use a simple REST-based interface that should be much more
lightweight than the SOAP interface, and also probably better
intergrated (especially at first).

Our client has granted us the right to release the Java interface
classes resulting form this project to open source. Two (sub-)
questions: a) Is the RT comunity interested in such classes? b) What
licence would be preferred (I would suggest LGPL)?

I personally regard the fact that there is no mature language-agnostic
interface to RT as a bug. I understand that Jesse is only one man, and
there is only so much time in the world – I blame the rest of us,
actually. I may soon have a need to interface to our RT instance from
Zope and Python, and I intend to make whatever work I do in that
direction publicly available (pending management buy-in, of course).

So, I think that a Java-based interface to RT would be grand, even
though I would probably never have the need to use it. One of the
interesting things about this project would be that the SOAP interface
(if that was what you started using) would most likely also be
improved, in order to fully implement the Java interface.

There was a thread a (long!) while back (in RT the 2.0 timeframe) about
a PHP interface, but the original poster’s misunderstanding of Perl made
the discussion turn sour. I thought this was a shame, because the
general idea is sound. (This discussion might have been on rt-users,
not rt-devel, if anyone starts looking through the archives for it.)

(darren)


Every thought you think is contributing its share to the ultimate
result of your life.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/DsXazsinjrVhZaoRAop/AJ0R1QMwxY6D3Rjms60umvKQS1D4oQCfRQpX
mti5/UxFc3DBgqr+5csV1qk=
=JhXu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

darren chamberlain wrote:

I’d like to build a Java interface for RT3 (since I could use it in a
small project). I’m looking into interfacing for quite a while now and
the only feasable way seems to be the rt-soap server.

You might also want to take a look at the CLI (when it appear) – it
will use a simple REST-based interface that should be much more
lightweight than the SOAP interface, and also probably better
intergrated (especially at first).

Is the CLI available in alpha/beta somewhere? I would like to take a
little look. Even though I think SOAP would be nicer since it would add
the possibility of accessing RT over a network connection…

Our client has granted us the right to release the Java interface
classes resulting form this project to open source. Two (sub-)
questions: a) Is the RT comunity interested in such classes? b) What
licence would be preferred (I would suggest LGPL)?

So, I think that a Java-based interface to RT would be grand, even
though I would probably never have the need to use it. One of the
interesting things about this project would be that the SOAP interface
(if that was what you started using) would most likely also be
improved, in order to fully implement the Java interface.

I will investigate a little more into Perl. Perhaps I can work a little
bit on rt-soap-server (and the WSDL) but I’m afraid I might not be too
much help…

Greetings
Sebastian

REST:
http://webservices.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2002/02/06/rest.html

The CLI and rt-mailgate talk to RT using REST. So I assume the point of
looking at either tool would be to better understand how to use REST.

Matt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

  • Sebastian Cramer [2003-07-11 12:37]:

darren chamberlain wrote:

I’d like to build a Java interface for RT3 (since I could use it
in a small project). I’m looking into interfacing for quite a
while now and the only feasable way seems to be the rt-soap
server.

You might also want to take a look at the CLI (when it appear) – it
will use a simple REST-based interface that should be much more
lightweight than the SOAP interface, and also probably better
intergrated (especially at first).

Is the CLI available in alpha/beta somewhere? I would like to take a
little look. Even though I think SOAP would be nicer since it would
add the possibility of accessing RT over a network connection…

The CLI isn’t available yet (it’s coming Real Soon Now, though). But,
the neat thing about it is that it communicates over the network; the
program itself is a small network client (that’s the REST[0] part of
what I mentioned above). This has a couple of interesting implications:

  • You can deploy the perl CLI to a machine that doesn’t have RT
    installed, since it doesn’t require half of CPAN (unlike RT itself).

  • Since it communicates over the network, there is extensive server-
    side support for it (otherwise it wouldn’t work).

  • Since it communicates over the network using a simple, CGI-like
    protocol, there are very few extra libraries that need to be present
    on the client machine, no matter what the implementation language –
    no XML parsers, no SOAP libraries, just the ability to open a
    network connection and parse a query string.

As I mentioned before, I already intend to create RT libraries for
Python, at least (since it’s what I will need), and likely C. I imagine
that similar libraries for Java, C++, PHP, etc would be very
straightforward.

So, I think that a Java-based interface to RT would be grand, even
though I would probably never have the need to use it. One of the
interesting things about this project would be that the SOAP
interface (if that was what you started using) would most likely
also be improved, in order to fully implement the Java interface.

I will investigate a little more into Perl. Perhaps I can work a
little bit on rt-soap-server (and the WSDL) but I’m afraid I might not
be too much help…

I was thinking also about bug reports, feature requests, and testing,
and not just implementation help. These are (arguably) as important as
code.

(darren)

[0] See http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm for
the origin of REST, if you are unclear about what I mean by the term.


So far as a man thinks, he is free.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/DusOzsinjrVhZaoRAq4uAJ41a7geEda4rUMpMU4tU1pb8flMRgCeKySb
ud3UkZP9o/GEGNr6RuuWWCo=
=Xasv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I personally regard the fact that there is no mature language-agnostic
interface to RT as a bug. I understand that Jesse is only one man, and
there is only so much time in the world – I blame the rest of us,
actually. I may soon have a need to interface to our RT instance from

There’s a large difference between “lack of feature” and “bug”.

http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?bug
http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?feature

Not just in definition, but also in perception and implication.

-R

It should be pointed out that a third party has been hacking on
rt-soap-server, the wsdl file and a couple of clients (Python and, iirc,
vb.net). One way to get help the SOAP server mature is to start writing
tools around it and probing deficiencies and contributing time or money
to help fix them.

http://www.bestpractical.com/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.

Hello!
Two questions:

1.)
I’d like to build a Java interface for RT3 (since I could use it in a
small project). I’m looking into interfacing for quite a while now and
the only feasable way seems to be the rt-soap server.
I’m having the problem that I can’t find a WSDL file for the interface
and my Perl knowledge is too small to deduce it from the source. A
couple of weeks ago I saw a short thread regarding just this WSDL file;
but I missed what happend to it.
Any help regarding the WSDL or any other way to interface would be
greatly appreciated. :slight_smile:

(as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it’s being worked on. I hope to
have time to polish the current state and roll a new release soon. A
WSDL file for the soap server is part of the new work)

2.)
Our client has granted us the right to release the Java interface
classes resulting form this project to open source. Two (sub-)
questions: a) Is the RT comunity interested in such classes?

Yes.

b) What licence would be preferred (I would suggest LGPL)?

I’d recommend something like the MIT / X License or the BSD license with
the advertising clause removed, as it gives parties who are interested
in building clients that talk to RT the most flexibility. But really,
use whatever makes sense to you. A Licensing Discussion (read: flamewar)
isn’t something that really belongs on rt-devel. :wink:

Jesse

http://www.bestpractical.com/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.

Jesse Vincent wrote:

Any help regarding the WSDL or any other way to interface would be
greatly appreciated. :slight_smile:

(as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it’s being worked on. I hope to
have time to polish the current state and roll a new release soon. A
WSDL file for the soap server is part of the new work)

I would love that. As soon as it is available I will start developing
and testing. Is there a way to get something like a pre-release (if one
is available)?

I’d recommend something like the MIT / X License or the BSD license with
the advertising clause removed, as it gives parties who are interested
in building clients that talk to RT the most flexibility. But really,
use whatever makes sense to you. A Licensing Discussion (read: flamewar)
isn’t something that really belongs on rt-devel. :wink:

NO. We don’t want THAT kind’a thing. Was just a short question wether
there is any preference… I see there is a slight preference - I will
look into it. But there needs to be some software before we can licence
it… :slight_smile:

Cheers

Sebastian