[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] optional features means optional tests?
Since we didn't get a chance to discuss this on the phone yesterday, but we did discuss timeframes for WS-BA interop, I think this particular issue is extremely pertinent now. If we can't reach a conclusion via discussion, how about just having an electronic ballot? Mark. On 21 Sep 2006, at 15:28, Mark Little wrote: > 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]