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

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

I don't believe we came to any agreement on this as a TC. As we  
approach BA interop I'd at least like to know what is and is not  
required/mandated. Any chance we can discuss this on the next call?

Mark.


On 6 Sep 2006, at 13:42, Mark Little wrote:

>
> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>