RE: [wsrp-interop] switch to 1.0

[Andre Kramer <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>]

Title:

I would not want to test an incomplete 1.0 (e.g. 1.0 WSDL but old re-write rules).

 

regards,

Andre

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Freedman [mailto:Michael.Freedman@oracle.com]
Sent: 02 July 2003 01:46
To: Rich Thompson
Cc: wsrp-interop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrp-interop] switch to 1.0

Yes, but I also think it will be useful/good if there is interoperability between the first set of JSR 168/WSRP containers that show up.  So, I think its useful for us to agree on what this specific function is .95, 1.0, 1.0 WSDL but minus functional changes such as URL rewrite.  I think in answering this question we should not only ask when folks can complete their implementations, but also when can they get them published for interop testing and perform the interop tests [and fix the problems].  We can then weigh this date against specific companies intent/need to publish a JSR 168 container at a specific time.  For basically I think we should work hard to communicate and demonstrate JSR 168 interoperate using remote portlets -- if the frist experience folks have with JSR 168 is that it doesn't interoperate it could be damaging.
     -Mike-

Rich Thompson wrote:

I would think that moving to the 1.0 WSDL as soon as is reasonable is the best plan. The 0.95 level of interoperability was useful testing (both of the spec and  the implementations), but it is much more important thing to achieve at least the equivalent at the 1.0 level. I doubt that the short duration of some things being broken during the time of people upgrading their implementations  will have a significant impact.

Rich Thompson

Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com> 07/01/2003 08:15 PM

To:        Richard Jacob <richard.jacob@de.ibm.com>         cc:        wsrp-interop@lists.oasis-open.org         Subject:        Re: [wsrp-interop] switch to 1.0

Its easy for us to upgrade to the 1.0 WSDL.  Its a little more work to
support the modified URL/namespacing semantics.  Which has more value
for folks, quickly upgrading to 1.0 WSDL [compatibility] or fully
upgrading to 1.0 semantics?  In either case as a number of us may be
preparing WSRP/JSR 168 containers for publication asap once JSR 168 goes
public we should probably coordinate/agree on a WSRP version for such
implementations so there is some interoperability when the public gets a
hold of things.  On the conservative side one would suggest the .95
versions we have been testing/working with fior the past month.  The
downside of this is upgrading the public [en mass] once we all switch
over to 1.0. The risk in going to 1.0 between now and next week is that
our current interoperability will break.  What do folks think?
    -Mike-

Richard Jacob wrote:

>Since 1.0 is now out, I wanted to raise the question when do people think
>we should switch our interop testing to 1.0?
>Do you have plans to update your implementations to 1.0 soon?
>We (IBM) plan to update as soon as possible, and hope to be able to switch
>our producer to 1.0 maybe end of this week.
>
>Any other opinions, comments, suggestions?
>
>Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,
>
>        Richard Jacob
>______________________________________________________
>IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
>Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
>Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
>Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com
>
>
>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interop/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
>  
>



You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interop/members/leave_workgroup.php