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

[Larry Cable <larry_cable@yahoo.com>]

--- Thomas Schaeck <SCHAECK@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I think the Apache effort needs to provide a
> framework running on top of
> Tomcat for implementing WSRP services.

that was my expectation also.

> 
> A preferred - but not the only - way to implement
> such WSRP services would
> be to implement portlets to JSR 168 and expose them
> as WSRP services by
> having the WSRP framework call into the portlet
> container to map the WSRP
> operations to invocations of the corresponding
> portlet methods.

ditto


I guess I was wondering if the Apache implementation
would provide a (tomcat) based "layered" 
implementation with support for WSIA, WSRP, and also
JSR 168 integration as "distinct" APIs ...

Rgds

- Larry

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Cable <larry_cable@yahoo.com> on 08/20/2002
> 03:50:36 PM
> 
> Please respond to larry_cable@yahoo.com
> 
> To:    Michael Freedman
> <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>
> cc:    wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject:    Re: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP
> Open Source
>        Implementatat ion...
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Apache effort intended to deliver *just*
> a JSR 168 Container exposing WSRP "services", or
> is it a broader effort to implement WSIA & WSRP?
> 
> Sorry if I am asking an obvious question, I'm just
> getting myself involved in the above so I am
> catching
> up.
> 
> - Larry Cable (ex-Sun, now "resting", sort of)
> 
> --- Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>
> wrote:
> > 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 in
> > that we are beginning early implementations hence
> > need to disqualify ourselves
> > 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 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 be
> > 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 this
> > situation.  Would "sample implementation" be a
> > better term?
> >    -Mike-
> >
> >
> > 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 should
> > > not be open source, but instead be an effort of
> > members of the TC, who are
> > > in the best position to make the determination
> as
> > to what it means to be in
> > > 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 and
> > > 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 the
> > > same team that is doing the reference
> > implementation, otherwise there is a
> > > big risk that the same bugs would be made on
> both
> > sides of the protocol...
> > > 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 against
> > > 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 efforts
> > > 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
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com