OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel-implement message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] Portability and Interoperability Testing



Do you have any recommendation on how we could create an open environment where we could collaboratively run stuff?


We have a BPEL playground outside a firewall (http://bpel.collaxa.com/BPELConsole) where sample BPEL processes can be deployed and tested. Do you happen to have an instance of BPWS4J accessible on the net and where we could try some basic interaction samples?





From: Diane Jordan [mailto:drj@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 1:09 PM
To: bpel implementation
Subject: Fw: [wsbpel-implement] Portability and Interoperability Testing


message from Rania below...

Regards, Diane
IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123

----- Forwarded by Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM on 02/17/2004 04:08 PM -----

Rania Khalaf/Watson/IBM

02/17/2004 01:36 PM

Please respond to


Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS




Re: Fw: [wsbpel-implement] Portability and Interoperability TestingLink




Hi Diane,

I was trying to post the following on the oasis list, but something's wrong with the smtp server so i couldn't.
Can it please get posted somehow ? This e-mail address is not the one I use in the TC so I can't post from here.

Hi everyone,

Ron, thanks for kicking things up around here again :)

First some background: We started out wanting to do some initial interop/portability trials by excercising parts of the
spec, starting with ones that we all are on the same page on, and moving
to ones that are more closely related to the issues. This is what led to
the initial set of scenarios that we put up last year.  We want to actually run stuff, and  for that we have a starting set of scenarios ready to run and taken mainly from the spec itself. The setup is to be informal, with an open forum on how things should run/how  they actually ran on the different engines being experimented with.

I think this is the right level for this stage in BPEL's life (although
it would help if people would come forward with engines to actually move
forward). It helps us share/run interacting BPELs, clarify issues being
discussed on the main list, and addresses any ambiguities that may come
up during execution that we can clarify in the updated specification.

A full testing/compliance suite would be desirable for BPEL; however,
this is not the right time for it and it's not in the scope of the TC
(building compliance tools). Perhaps something could go on in parallel,
maybe in the WS-I, after the spec is finalized and released so that
people refer to a full version. I am strongly against doing this here.

Sadly, we didn't even get enough people to join to do the above, simple, test scenarios and start up the basic discussions that would lead to an
understanding of what it would take to have portability/interop in BPEL.
I would just like to see people moving away from bullet lists and
wanting to draw up more examples and discussing how things *should* run,
to actually openly and collaboratively running stuff, talking about the
results, the assumptions, the assumptions proved wrong. This is where we
want to go, and this is the right forum to do it in.  


Rania Y. Khalaf

Software Engineer
Component Systems Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
Hawthorne, NY
Tel: (914) 784-7603


Diane Jordan

02/13/2004 04:19 PM

        To:        Frank Leymann/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, Dieter Roller/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, Dieter Koenig1/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM, Rania Khalaf/Watson/IBM, Fabienne Marquardt/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM
        Subject:        Fw: [wsbpel-implement] Portability and Interoperability Testing

fyi - at last some activity on implementations.  I guess Sun has their code ready.  
I don't think validation tools or certification are in scope for TC  though.  
I'll respond on the list that I'm glad to see renewed interest and point to the call that's planned for Mar. 1.  
Feel free to comment on the list if you wish.

Regards, Diane
IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123

----- Forwarded by Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM on 02/13/2004 04:16 PM -----

"Kristofer Agren" <kagren@pakalert.com>

02/13/2004 02:01 PM


"'Ron Ten-Hove'" <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>, "'bpel implementation'" <wsbpel-implement@lists.oasis-open.org>




RE: [wsbpel-implement] Portability and Interoperability Testing




I agree that this needs to happen in order for BPEL to gain acceptance in
the industry. Here are some of objectives that spring to mind:

1. Provide the tools for implementers to validate their implementations,
this could include:

1.1. Defining a set of BPEL processes/use cases that will collectively cover
the functionality of the entire BPEL specification. These test cases should
be delivered in conjunction with new the release of new BPEL specifications.

1.2. Define the expected results when running the BPEL processes above,
which could be done by either supplying the message contents that are
involved and their flow, or providing actual implementations on a central
site so that the test processes can be run with different input.

1.3. Either providing a set of WSDL definitions for the web services that
will take part, or even better, provide actual implementations at a central
site so that there will be no misinterpretations when implementing the web
services involved in the business process.

2. Provide some ways for, for lack of a better work, certification. This of
course implies that some independent entity is available to do the
certification. While certification is a huge effort by itself, without it,
there will be no way to tell if a given implementation is in fact compliant.

3. Interoperability. This would imply cooperation on behalf of all, or a
large majority of, BPEL implementers. How do we get implementers to ensure
portability amongst themselves?



-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 1:38 PM
To: bpel implementation
Subject: [wsbpel-implement] Portability and Interoperability Testing

BPEL implementors:

   I've been giving some thought lately to the issues of testing or
demonstrating compliance to the WS-BPEL specification. As we have
discussed in the past this really falls into two categories: portability
and interoperability.

   Historically there have been several approaches to testing such
compliance. Our situation is complicated by dependencies on
implementation-specific messaging infrastructure, so we have some other
issues to deal with before we get to the main event. What approaches do
you, the implementors of BPEL, see as the most likely to demonstrate
BPEL compliance, portability, and (reasonable) interoperability? Should
we start trying to spin up an effort (perhaps external) to do this?

   I believe that doing nothing in this domain will do a lot of harm to
BPEL. Are we at the right stage in BPEL's life to worry about this? Or
has someone started addressing this issue already?


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]