Re: [wsbpel-implement] Portability and Interoperability Testing

[rkhalaf <rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi Edwin,

The proposal for the open environment has been discussed and was 
supposed to start at the last F2F, but no one brought an engine except 
for me and Rajesh - but Rajesh had to leave early :(    The Collaxa 
playground sounds great; the BPWS4J engine has been available for free 
download online since '02. However, for this stuff that doesn't really 
help:

There was concern expressed multiple times in the TC that people 
specifically did not want to have other people run processes on their 
engines, and that they wanted to test the proposed processes on their 
engines before bringing them in. So the agreement in order to encourage 
participation was for informal trials at  the TC face to face meetings 
to have the open trials, and use the mailing list to keep going. The 
idea was to meet and run the same processes on our own engines that we 
bring, and run different processes that interact with each other such 
that each is on a separate contributor's engine. Specifically, people 
didn't want other people running processes they weren't aware of on 
their engines without them being in control. It was agreed to do this to 
keep the friendly environment and tone down competitiveness, and to 
address concerns regarding contamination and IP. We could discuss there; 
people don't have to provide product level implementation; we could 
adapt the processes  or engines if we like.

Note that for BPWS4J we're in the process of updating to a newer version 
which I am able to bring to the TC meetings but can't provide online as 
yet.

I hope more people join next time!! If you have the Collaxa engine, why 
don't you bring it to the next F2F?? Any other volunteers? Rajesh are 
you up for this again? :) We have a preliminary set of examples online. 
I think the services deployed in the third party server might have gone 
down but I'm sure I can revive them.

Rania


Edwin Khodabakchian wrote:

> Rania,
>
>  
>
> 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?
>
>  
>
> Edwin
>
>  
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
> drj@us.ibm.com
> (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
> rkhalaf
>
> To
>
> Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>
> cc
>
>  
>
> Subject
>
> Re: Fw: [wsbpel-implement] Portability and Interoperability 
> TestingLink 
> <Notes://8525659300734EC0/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/3526AFBB9AC4112F85256E390074D44A>
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> 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
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Rania Y. Khalaf
>
> Software Engineer
> Component Systems Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> Hawthorne, NY
> Tel: (914) 784-7603
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/r/rkhalaf/
>
>  
>
> 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
>         cc:        
>         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
> drj@us.ibm.com
> (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
>
> To
>
> "'Ron Ten-Hove'" <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>, "'bpel implementation'" <wsbpel-implement@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> cc
>
>  
>
> Subject
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
>
> Kristofer
>
> -----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?
>
> Cheers,
> -Ron
>