[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [bt-spec] Interoperability
Apologies for the subject label in the last mail - my spell checker corrected BT-Spec and I unfortunately hit send just as I saw it!!!!! > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Potts > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:53 PM > To: 'Geoffrey Brown' > Cc: 'BT - spec'; William Z Pope (E-mail); Bill Flood (E-mail) > Subject: [bt-spec] RE: [but-spec] Interoperability > > > Geoff > > There are conformance levels in the spec based on "roles" that you can > implement - for instance "Participant" or "Atomic Superior". > I would like > to see vendors test the interoperability of theses roles across vendor > implementations. I think this would start to show where the spec is > ambiguous and could do with "tightening up". This is what I > would recommend > we try and do initially. To do this we would need some test > scenarios based > on the requirements and use cases we specified initially - > although these > may rather out of date in light of where the spec now is. > > I have liked the approach taken at the WS-I in terms of coming up with > scenario and then a profile for the scenario. For example > (off the top of my > head, so don't take this to be a literal example); > > Scenario: Third Party Coordination > Roles: Initiator/Terminator, Atomic Hub, Participant's) > Description: An initiator of a transaction contacts the Atomic Hub to > ascertain context for a transaction. Subsequently the > initiator invokes > services and propagates the context, including the address of > the Atomic > Hub. Participants enrol with the Atomic Hub. Once Context > Replies have been > received from the services invoked the initiator confirms the > transaction > with the Atomic Hub. The atomic Hub terminates the > transaction of behalf of > the initiator, reporting back the result of the confirmation request. > > Profile: Defines the interactions in terms of the specification in an > unambiguous way, in essence definitively defining, for this > scenario the > interaction in term of MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", > "SHALL", "SHALL NOT" > only, and avoids "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > "OPTIONAL". > > We may not be able to go the "whole hog" initially with > defining profiles > but we should at a minimum define the scenarios and test > cases to prove > conformance and therefore interoperability. I think we have > dropped the ball > on this a little and got this close to completing the spec > without some of > this in place, but then we are all busy and it hard to get > all this done and > spec out in timely fashion. FYI WS-I has set a target of 180 > days for the > basic profile that covers a simple set of scenarios and a > single profile > (covering HTTP 1.1, SOAP 1.1, WSDL 1.x, and UDDI x.x.) > > Regards, > Mark Potts > > PS - for Sanjay's benefit! I too hate the use of the term Hub > - could we not > make it Controller! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Geoffrey Brown [mailto:Geoffrey.Brown@oracle.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:48 PM > > To: Mark Potts > > Cc: 'BT - spec'; William Z Pope (E-mail); Bill Flood (E-mail) > > Subject: Re: [bt-spec] Interoperability > > > > > > Mark, > > > > I agree, this makes a lot of sense .. other than issue 89 > > could you elaborate on > > your thoughts ? > > > > Geoff. > > > > Mark Potts wrote: > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > With respect issues 89 is a parallel issues to ensuring > > interoperability, we > > > need to address / test interoperability between conformance > > profiles based > > > on the 1.0 spec even if it does not include serialized state. > > > > > > In terms of looking at interoperability between different > > implementations of > > > the conformance roles we need to sure up the SHOULD, MAY, > > and at least > > > define a minimum profile such that interoperability can be > > achieved between > > > conformant implementations of that profile. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Mark Potts - Chief Technology Officer > > > Talking Blocks > > > > > > Office : +1 415 395 9872 x2250 > > > Fax : +1 415 395 9777 > > > Cell : +1 415 606 9096 > > > Email : mailto:mark.potts@talkingblocks.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Geoffrey Brown [mailto:Geoffrey.Brown@oracle.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:28 AM > > > > To: Mark Potts > > > > Cc: 'BT - spec'; William Z Pope (E-mail); Bill Flood (E-mail) > > > > Subject: Re: [bt-spec] Interoperability > > > > > > > > > > > > Interoperability *HAS* to be addressed before v1.0 of the > > > > specification is > > > > finished, as you are aware I am trying to address this in > > > > part with issue 89. > > > > > > > > Geoff. > > > > > > > > Mark Potts wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > > > Originally when the TC was set up a sub-committee was > formed for > > > > > Interoperability, Conformance Testing, headed up by Mark > > > > Hale at Interwoven. > > > > > I know Mark has since moved on from Interwoven and at this > > > > time is not a > > > > > contributing member to the TC. > > > > > > > > > > I suggest we address this sub-group - their charter etc in > > > > Newcastle. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Mark Potts - Chief Technology Officer > > > > > Talking Blocks > > > > > > > > > > Office : +1 415 395 9872 x2250 > > > > > Fax : +1 415 395 9777 > > > > > Cell : +1 415 606 909 > > > > > Email : mailto:mark.potts@talkingblocks.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