[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...
--- Rudnicki Joseph G CONT NSSC <RudnickiJG@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL> wrote: > Hello, > > I am very interested in assuring that WSRP allows > total "plug and play." > Anything else will make WSRP similar to early > versions of CORBA, more of a > philosopy than an interoperability specification. > > Will creating conformance test definitions make it > easier to assure that > WSRP is "plug and play?" Often looking at the > problem from different > directions assures a more consistent product. This > would mean that the > conformance test definitions could both provide a > basis for WSRP conformance > tests and provide feedback to the WSRP > specification. > that was my thinking on the matter > Take care. > > Joe Rudnicki > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Cable [mailto:larry_cable@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:53 AM > To: Alan Kropp; 'Thomas Schaeck'; 'Michael Freedman' > Cc: 'wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org' > Subject: RE: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP > Open Source > Implementatat ion... > > > > --- Alan Kropp <akropp@epicentric.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: 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, > > > > Thomas > > > > > > Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com> on > > 08/17/2002 08:52:35 PM > > > > To: > > 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 > > 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: > > > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC