Re: [ws-tx] optional features means optional tests?

[Mark Little <mark.little@jboss.com>]

On 6 Sep 2006, at 11:51, Alastair Green wrote:

> Completion protocol is not mandatory under any circumstances.  
> Activation Service is not mandatory under any circumstances.


The change from mandatory to optional occurred during that interop.  
phase. If it had been earlier, then I would be arguing for the same  
point there.

>
> In my view, to repeat, the point of these interop tests is to prove  
> (very roughly) -- better, to give some confidence -- that the words  
> in the spec are capable of being rendered into interoperable software.

But that should not mean that the tests themselves are mandatory. The  
distinction between optional and mandatory elements in a  
specification and how they are handled by optional and mandatory  
tests in used well in W3C. Are you suggesting that those  
specifications/standards are not interoperable?

>
> Besides, how hard is it to do this? Support for mixed outcome at a  
> wire level is trivial.

Fine, but it shouldn't make the interop. tests mandatory. All that  
does is make it easier for those companies who wish to participate in  
those tests to do so.

What I want is for us to agree that optional features are covered by  
optional tests. Then we can have a discussion about how many  
companies we should ideally have to cover optional features in order  
to give us a degree of confidence. I refer back to the W3C approach.

Mark.


>
> Alastair
>
> Mark Little wrote:
>> We need to describe the tests for all features if we want to show  
>> interoperability for those features. However, and the specific  
>> case I have in mind is mixed outcome, which is not mandatory under  
>> any circumstances, it shouldn't be a requirement for anyone in the  
>> TC to test against because then it's effectively a mandatory  
>> implementation (at least as far as the TC work is concerned). It  
>> does not make sense to have optional features covered by mandatory  
>> tests. Likewise, it does not make sense to have optional features  
>> that aren't tested by at least 2 different implementations, but  
>> that's a separate issue.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5 Sep 2006, at 14:41, Alastair Green wrote:
>>
>>> Unlike in WS-AT, where optional Completion protocol was a  
>>> mandatory interop test. :-)
>>>
>>> Not sure of final outcome from F2F, but this point was discussed,  
>>> and it was pointed out that in AT this approach was not taken.
>>>
>>> In my view the point of interop tests is not conformance, but to  
>>> prove that the specs are workable -- a task which applies to all  
>>> parts.
>>>
>>> Yrs,
>>>
>>> Alastair
>>>
>>> Mark Little wrote:
>>>> I'm assuming that any optional features in the specification  
>>>> that are covered by tests in the interoperability scenarios  
>>>> inherently means that those tests are also optional? Certainly  
>>>> in W3C interoperability testing, only mandatory features have to  
>>>> be tested.
>>>>
>>>> Mark.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>