[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...
It's a more general implementation. The WSRP-JSR168 bridge is just one case. Best regards Carsten Leue ------- Dr. Carsten Leue Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory Böblingen , Germany Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401 |---------+----------------------------> | | Larry Cable | | | <larry_cable@yaho| | | o.com> | | | | | | 08/20/2002 03:50 | | | PM | | | Please respond to| | | larry_cable | |---------+----------------------------> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | 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