[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP Open Source Implementatation...
I think the Apache effort needs to provide a framework running on top of
Tomcat for implementing WSRP services.
A preferred - but not the only - way to implement such WSRP services would
be to implement portlets to JSR 168 and expose them as WSRP services by
having the WSRP framework call into the portlet container to map the WSRP
operations to invocations of the corresponding portlet methods.
Best regards,
Thomas
Larry Cable <larry_cable@yahoo.com> on 08/20/2002 03:50:36 PM
Please respond to larry_cable@yahoo.com
To: Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>
cc: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP Open Source
Implementatat ion...
Is the Apache effort intended to deliver *just*
a JSR 168 Container exposing WSRP "services", or
is it a broader effort to implement WSIA & WSRP?
Sorry if I am asking an obvious question, I'm just
getting myself involved in the above so I am catching
up.
- Larry Cable (ex-Sun, now "resting", sort of)
--- Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>
wrote:
> We should try and find out if there are sufficient
> members of the TC willing to
> work on this that aren't also tainted. We are in
> the same position as IBM in
> that we are beginning early implementations hence
> need to disqualify ourselves
> as well. Who out there isn't planning on
> implementing a WSRP
> producer/container over the next 4-6 months and
> would be willing to work on on
> a validation/compliance suite?
>
> As for calling the Apache work a "reference
> implementation" I think we need to
> be careful. WSRP has a variety of usage patterns --
> one of which seems to be
> the target of this implementation. As "reference
> implementations" often
> define/imply a coded version of the specification
> i.e. the code defines the
> spec particularly where the spec is unclear -- it
> seems inappropriate in this
> situation. Would "sample implementation" be a
> better term?
> -Mike-
>
>
> Alan Kropp wrote:
>
> > Thomas and Mike,
> >
> > Yes, a validation/compliance suite will be of
> great importance. It seems
> > like a good idea from the perspective of both
> prospective WSRP portlet
> > writers and consumers as well.
> >
> > I agree with Thomas that the validation suite
> should be undertaken by a
> > different group of developers than the reference
> implementation. It should
> > not be open source, but instead be an effort of
> members of the TC, who are
> > in the best position to make the determination as
> to what it means to be in
> > compliance with the WSRP spec.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Schaeck [mailto:SCHAECK@de.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 4:51 AM
> > To: Michael Freedman
> > Cc: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP
> Open Source
> > Implementatation ...
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > you've got a very good point - a validation suite
> is definitively very
> > important. I think this is the best way to ensure
> standards compliance and
> > interoperability of the various products that will
> support WSRP.
> >
> > One thing we'll need to discuss is whether the
> validation suite and the
> > WSRP Producer platform should be in the scope of
> the same open source
> > project or an independent, entirely separate
> project. I would tend to the
> > latter which of course would not mean that it
> could not also be open
> > source.
> >
> > Regarding who should do the validation suite, I
> think it should not be the
> > same team that is doing the reference
> implementation, otherwise there is a
> > big risk that the same bugs would be made on both
> sides of the protocol...
> > I would actually propose that an entirely
> separate, independent team,
> > produces the validation suite. (This is like it is
> done for the JSR 168,
> > for example).
> >
> > Then the reference implementation like any product
> can be validated against
> > the validation suite.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com> on
> 08/15/2002 11:18:36 PM
> >
> > To: Thomas Schaeck/Germany/IBM@IBMDE
> > cc: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on
> WSRP Open Source
> > Implementatation ...
> >
> > Thomas,
> > Though there is undeniable value for portlet
> developers to have early
> > access
> >
> > to a portlet container that hides the complexity
> of our protocol and more
> > specifically the one you cite (a JSR 168
> container) I think we need to
> > balance this effort with our need to have
> compliance/conformance tests
> > that ensure interoperability. I suspect there
> will be a number of efforts
> > this fall/winter where individual vendors build
> similar solutions as you
> > suggest if only to provide a platform for their
> extensions. With the
> > growing complexity of our protocol, particularly
> in relation to the
> > probable combinations via which it can be
> presented (i.e. read various
> > ports), it seems likely that at a minimum "bugs"
> will be introduced in
> > specific
> >
> > implementations if not valid differences in
> "interpretations" [including
> > your
> > own].
> > How do you suggest the TC/Expert Group verify the
> correctness of your
> > prototype? How do you suggest that vendors
> implementing WSRP will
> > verify the correctness of their implementations?
> Should there be at
> > least an equivalent effort to produce a validation
> suite? Could IBM, given
> > its leadership role in both WSIA and WSRP [and its
> sheer numbers in each
> > group] take a lead in developing this as well?
> > -Mike-
> >
> > Thomas Schaeck wrote:
> >
> > > Dear WSRP TC Members,
> > >
> > > I've written up some initial thoughts on the way
> towards the open source
> > > implementation.
> > >
> > > Also, I've got a commitment from IBM to do a
> part of the work required
> > for
> > > the open source implementation, see the end of
> this e-mail.
> > >
> > > WSRP Open Source Implementation Proposal
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Home: Apache Jakarta
> > >
> > > Purpose:
> > > Provide a framework for WSRP producers that
> allows for simple
> > > implementation and deployment of WSRP services.
> > > Integrate with the JSR 168 reference
> implementation, allow to publish and
> > > expose portlets as WSRP services.
> > > Provide examples and tools to help implementing
> WSRP services.
> > > Provide WSRP Portal Consumer and simple Consumer
> for testing WSRP
> > services.
> > >
> > > Programming Language: Java
> > >
> > > Application Server: Apache Jakarta
> Tomcat
> > >
> > > SOAP Implementation: Apache XML Axis
> > >
> > > WSRP Programming Model: WSRPlets (simple
> servlets exposed as WSRP
> > services)
> > > Portlets (JSR 168)
> exposed as WSRP services
> > >
> > > Scope:
> > >
> > > Producer side:
> > > - Framework/Runtime for WSRP Producers based on
> Tomcat
> > > - Integration with JSR 168
> > > - Various Example WSRP Services to teach the
> public how to
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC