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

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

I meant the original issue: optional features mean optional tests.  
What happened in the past may be a precedent for the TC to consider,  
but if not then the optional features in WS-BA need to be considered  
for OPTIONAL tests IMO.

Mark.


On 20 Sep 2006, at 19:47, Ian Robinson wrote:

> Per the resolution to i047: "A coordination service that supports an
> Activation service MUST support the Completion protocol." The  
> Activation
> service has always been optional.
>
> This is, of course, a spec statement. From an AT interop  
> perspective, the
> majority of the tests focussed on the madatory 2PC protocol but  
> there are 2
> scenarion that include the Activation and Completion protocols. For  
> AT, I
> don't believe we categorized interop scenarios as "optional" or not.
>
> Regards,
> Ian
>
>
>
>              Mark Little
>              <mark.little@jbos
>               
> s.com>                                                     To
>                                        ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
>              20/09/2006  
> 17:51                                           cc
>
>                                                                     
> Subject
>                                        Re: [ws-tx] optional  
> features means
>                                        optional tests?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
>