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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp message

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

Subject: RE: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP Open Source Implementatation...

I agree with Thomas.  I believe there are precedents for the spec 
implementors also being the compliance suite implementors.    
In JSR 168, and in fact all JSRs, the spec lead (who almost 
always implements the spec) is also in charge of the compliance 

Given that, can we find a way of sharing the compliance suite 
implementation across a few TC members, whether or not they are 
also implementing the spec?

Besides the implementation of the compliance suite, there are 
other issues, that the TC needs to decide on, such as: 
* The process for the TC to validate that the compliance suite 
  is in fact correct
* Are there any penalties for failing the suite, or benefits for 
* Do companies administer the test on themselves?  If it is the 
  honor system, what exactly are we expecting to get out of it?
* If it's not the honor system, what's the process for 
  administering the test:  does anyone in specific administer it, 
  how do you schedule a time to do it, do you have to bring any
  hardware/software to a certain place.  This would mean there's 
  an ongoing cost to maintaining a compliance program, and are 
  there TC members willing to shoulder it?

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Schaeck [mailto:SCHAECK@de.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 4:30 AM
To: Michael Freedman
Cc: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP Open Source
Implementatat ion...

I think that while the validation compliance suite should be done by
different people, it dosn't necessarily mean different companies.

It would be ok if some companies have teams working for implementations for
their products and contribute different people, e.g. from their QA
departments to the compliance suite.

Since IBM is already providing significant resources for editing the spec
and providing a free implementation it would be good if other companies
contribute resources to work on the compliance suite.

One thing we should also consider is something like a "plug fest" (hope
that's the proper term), i.e. a meeting where different companies bring
servers with their portals and WSRP producers and we test that they work
together properly.

Best regards,


Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com> on 08/17/2002 08:52:35 PM

cc:    wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:    Re: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP Open Source
       Implementatat    ion...

We should try and find out if there are sufficient members of the TC
willing to
work on this that aren't also tainted.  We are in the same position as IBM
that we are beginning early implementations hence need to disqualify
as well.  Who out there isn't planning on implementing a WSRP
producer/container over the next 4-6 months and would be willing to work on
a validation/compliance suite?

As for calling the Apache work a "reference implementation"  I think we
need to
be careful.  WSRP has a variety of usage patterns -- one of which seems to
the target of this implementation.  As "reference implementations" often
define/imply a coded version of the specification i.e. the code defines the
spec particularly where the spec is unclear -- it seems inappropriate in
situation.  Would "sample implementation" be a better term?

Alan Kropp wrote:

> Thomas and Mike,
> Yes, a validation/compliance suite will be of great importance.  It seems
> like a good idea from the perspective of both prospective WSRP portlet
> writers and consumers as well.
> I agree with Thomas that the validation suite should be undertaken by a
> different group of developers than the reference implementation.  It
> not be open source, but instead be an effort of members of the TC, who
> in the best position to make the determination as to what it means to be
> compliance with the WSRP spec.
> Alan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Schaeck [mailto:SCHAECK@de.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 4:51 AM
> To: Michael Freedman
> Cc: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP Open Source
> Implementatation ...
> Mike,
> you've got a very good point - a validation suite is definitively very
> important. I think this is the best way to ensure standards compliance
> interoperability of the various products that will support WSRP.
> One thing we'll need to discuss is whether the validation suite and the
> WSRP Producer platform should be in the scope of the same open source
> project or an independent, entirely separate project. I would tend to the
> latter which of course would not mean that it could not also be open
> source.
> Regarding who should do the validation suite, I think it should not be
> same team that is doing the reference implementation, otherwise there is
> big risk that the same bugs would be made on both sides of the
> I would actually propose that an entirely separate, independent team,
> produces the validation suite. (This is like it is done for the JSR 168,
> for example).
> Then the reference implementation like any product can be validated
> the validation suite.
> Best regards,
> Thomas
> Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com> on 08/15/2002 11:18:36 PM
> To:    Thomas Schaeck/Germany/IBM@IBMDE
> cc:    wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject:    Re: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP Open Source
>        Implementatation ...
> Thomas,
>    Though there is undeniable value for portlet developers to have early
>    access
> to a portlet container that hides the complexity of our protocol and more
> specifically the one you cite (a JSR 168 container) I think we need to
> balance this effort with our need to have compliance/conformance tests
> that ensure interoperability.  I suspect there will be a number of
> this fall/winter where individual vendors build similar solutions as you
> suggest if only to provide a platform for their extensions.  With the
> growing complexity of our protocol, particularly in relation to the
> probable combinations via which it can be presented (i.e. read various
> ports), it seems likely that at a minimum "bugs" will be introduced in
> specific
> implementations if not valid differences in "interpretations" [including
> your
> own].
> How do you suggest the TC/Expert Group verify the correctness of your
> prototype?  How do you suggest that vendors implementing WSRP will
> verify the correctness of their implementations?  Should there be at
> least an equivalent effort to produce a validation suite?  Could IBM,
> its leadership role in both WSIA and WSRP [and its sheer numbers in each
> group] take a lead in developing this as well?
>      -Mike-
> Thomas Schaeck wrote:
> > Dear WSRP TC Members,
> >
> > I've written up some initial thoughts on the way towards the open
> > implementation.
> >
> > Also, I've got a commitment from IBM to do a part of the work required
> for
> > the open source implementation, see the end of this e-mail.
> >
> > WSRP Open Source Implementation Proposal
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> > Home: Apache Jakarta
> >
> > Purpose:
> > Provide a framework for WSRP producers that allows for simple
> > implementation and deployment of WSRP services.
> > Integrate with the JSR 168 reference implementation, allow to publish
> > expose portlets as WSRP services.
> > Provide examples and tools to help implementing WSRP services.
> > Provide WSRP Portal Consumer and simple Consumer for testing WSRP
> services.
> >
> > Programming Language:   Java
> >
> > Application Server:           Apache Jakarta Tomcat
> >
> > SOAP Implementation:    Apache XML Axis
> >
> > WSRP Programming Model: WSRPlets (simple servlets exposed as WSRP
> services)
> >                         Portlets (JSR 168) exposed as WSRP services
> >
> > Scope:
> >
> > Producer side:
> > - Framework/Runtime for WSRP Producers based on Tomcat
> > - Integration with JSR 168
> > - Various Example WSRP Services to teach the public how to
> >   write WSRP services based on the WSRP framework
> >   (e.g. simple Flight Schedule, Stock Quote Service,
> >   News Service, ...)
> >
> > Consumer side:
> > - Simple WSRP Client
> > - Portal Client based on JSR 168 Reference Implementation
> > - Stateless Consumer ?
> >
> > Proposed Roadmap:
> >
> > Keep implementation in WSRP TC until Spec is well defined and
> > implementation is reasonably complete, then open-source the code in a
> > open source project. Go towards this goal in three steps:
> >
> > Phase 1. Prototype and Demo based on early WSRP draft as of September
> >
> > Finish for 3rd Face-to-Face Meeting September, 9th.
> > Distribute implementation to TC members.
> >
> > Phase 2. Complete Implementation of Final Draft for WSRP 1.0
> Specification
> > as available in November
> >
> > Finish for 4th Face-to-Face Meeting November 11th.
> > Distribute implementation to TC members.
> >
> > Phase 3. Open Source WSRP Implementation
> > Finish by January 2003, complying to WSRP 1.0 Specification
> > Found Open Source Project in January and donate initial code to Open
> Source
> > Community
> >
> > IBM Contribution:
> > -----------------
> >
> > To enable a quick start for the WSRP open source implementation, IBM is
> > willing to do the following work:
> >
> > Initiate the new Open Source Project at Apache Jakarta with the charter
> to
> > implement and maintain a free WSRP implementation and potentially
> > e.g. for publishing WSRP services to UDDI.
> >
> > Provide and fund the project lead for the new Apache open source
> >
> > Implement a modular, servlet-based framework for WSRP producers that
> > allow WSRP services to use JSPs and taglibs for rendering markup,
> integrate
> > with the JSR 168 reference implementation and be able to expose
> as
> > WSRP services and donate that as a starting point for the Open Source
> > Project to cover the "Framework for WSRP Producers" and "Integration
> > JSR 168" parts of the scope proposed above.
> >
> > IBM wants to provide working prototypes for phase 1 and 2 (see above)
> > the TC and probably also via alphaworks
> >
> > IBM may provide the source code for phase 1 and 2 prototypes to the
> > interested WSRP/WSIA TC members under an IBM CDA.
> >
> > Please send your comments flagged as [WSRP-IMPL].
> >
> > As mentioned in the other e-mail, I'll put this up as the main topic
> > the next bi-weekly call, Thursday next week.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC