Re: [sca-j] Direction for normative text and tests covering JAX-WSannotations.

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Bryan,

Your analysis shows the problem of mixing
styles of normative statements.

Most of the componentType sections are
a written (deliberately) in a simple declarative style with no normative
statements
and are then prefixed by a single normative
statement requiring that an SCA runtime computes the componentType in the
fashion described in that declarative
section.  This approach avoids a lot of detailed normative statements
that in many instances
would become convoluted because of conditional
cases.

Other sections, such as the handling
of reference targets in the Assembly specification, have detailed normative
statements
throughout and no encompassing normative
statement. In this case, it is clear what is expected for each aspect of
the behaviour,
at the cost of a few convoluted statements
(eg ASM50014).

Mix the styles and it gets much harder
to understand what is expected.  I recommend choosing one style and
sticking to it, for any
given section.

In this case, given the extensive number
of existing normative statements in the table, I think that adding a set
of new ones to
the table is desirable.  The idea
of adding a similar number of testcases does not fill me with joy.  I
already added about 25
new testcases in the last 2 weeks, some
quite complex  :-(



Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From:	Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>
To:	sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	28/06/2010 17:43
Subject:	[sca-j] Direction for normative text and tests covering JAX-WS annotations.

---

On this week's call we had a brief discussion
about the lack of a normative statement covering the exclude property of
@WebMethod and thus no test assertion or test case.  When I looked
at this in more detail I noticed a couple of things. Normative statement
JCA100011 states: An SCA runtime MUST
apply the JAX-WS annotations as described in Table 11-1 and Table 11-2
when introspecting a Java class or interface class.
 The test assertion document states that for this normative statement:
No meaningful assertion. 

I contrast this with a similar situation in the JCS Spec, where JCI80001
states: An SCA runtime MUST introspect
the componentType of a Java implementation class following the rules defined
in the section "Component Type of a Java Implementation".
 This normative statement leads to a number of individual test assertions:
JCI-TA-8001, JCI-TA-8002, JCI-TA-8003, JCI-TA-8004, JCI-TA-8005, JCI-TA-8006,
JCI-TA-8007, JCI-TA-8008, JCI-TA-8009, JCI-TA-8010, JCI-TA-8011, JCI-TA-8012,
JCI-TA-8013, JCI-TA-8016, JCI-TA-8017, JCI-TA-8018, JCI-TA-8019, JCI-TA-8020,
JCI-TA-8021, JCI-TA-8022, JCI-TA-8023, JCI-TA-8024, JCI-TA-8025, JCI-TA-8026,
JCI-TA-8027, JCI-TA-8028, JCI-TA-8029, JCI-TA-8030, JCI-TA-8031, JCI-TA-8032,
JCI-TA-8033, JCI-TA-8034, JCI-TA-8035, JCI-TA-8036, JCI-TA-8037 in the
current draft. 

There are several points in CAA Table
11-1 and Table 11-2 that probably
need testing that currently do not have explicit normative statements:
@WebService: name 
@WebMethod: operationName and exclude 
@WebParam: name, mode and  partName 
@WebReturn: name and partName 
@WebFault: name 
We could write explicit normative statements for each of these (making
JCA100011 redundant) or cover them via JCA100011 and have test assertions
and thus test cases for JCA100011 like we have for JCI80001.

I'd like some input on the direction to take before I write up an issue/proposal.

Thanks. 

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
WW Center of Excellence for Enterprise Systems & Banking Center of
Excellence Application Integration Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC 
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU