[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...
We are planning on having a clean room implementation and would participate in the creation on the compliance suite. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Larry Cable [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:53 AM To: Alan Kropp; 'Thomas Schaeck'; 'Michael Freedman' Cc: 'firstname.lastname@example.org' Subject: RE: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP Open Source Implementatat ion... --- Alan Kropp <email@example.com> wrote: > 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 > suite. > > 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 would there be any value in creating a compliance test suite definition; essentially a document that catalogs (apriori) the set of conformance tests; what they test, "how", and what the conformant result(s) would be? Although this is certainly "unusual" this could be valuable; it could either be a separate document or "inline" conformance statements in the spec itself as long as they did not significantly impact the readability of the spec itself. Rgds - Larry Cable > * Are there any penalties for failing the suite, or > benefits for > passing? > * 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: firstname.lastname@example.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, > > Thomas > > > Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com> on > 08/17/2002 08:52:35 PM > > To: > cc: email@example.com > 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 > 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: firstname.lastname@example.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 > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
Powered by eList eXpress LLC