W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > May 2008

RE: [SOAP-JMS] minutes 2008-05-20

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:15:48 -0400
Message-ID: <819c936bd7c5f7a3a7c90e5bbc6c1022@xerom.local>
To: Phil Adams <phil_adams@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>, SOAP/JMS (list) <public-soap-jms@w3.org>

[snipped attachments]

On 2008-05-22 09:52:16 -0400 Phil Adams <phil_adams@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> "or perhaps we should develop two components, a "conformance checkin
> responder app" and a "conformance checking  requesting app" that 
> simpldrive 
> the binding implementations."
> 
> That's one of the options I was referring to on Tueday's call.      
> We could 
> develop those "conformance-checking apps" to verify each side of the 
> producer/consumer "connection", and - at least in the case of where 
> we're 
> verifying the compliance of the vendor's message producer component 
> (i.e. 
> client runtime) - we'd also need to develop some sort of web service 
> application that exercises the client runtime and causes the desired 
> SOAP 
> messages to be produced by that client runtime, etc.

Errrrrmmmmmm.  Complexity kills.

I'd recommend a minimalist approach, insofar as that is possible.  
Some principles:

1) we define against an API.  Consequently any supplied code
    a) should use the API
    b) should not use the SPI
    c) should minimize use of any components outside the SDK

2) as I understand it, JMS is rarely deployed outside the firewall
    a) is that a misconception?
    b) if it is not, then are we going to be able to deploy a public 
service?
    c) security, security, security ...

3) do we need a deployed application?
    a) see (2)
    b) implementors may prefer (strongly) to do internal conformance 
testing before exposing their work to others (particularly true of 
JMS, where the proprietary tradition is quite strong)

This leads me in the direction of suggesting not a web application or 
public endpoint, but a downloadable conformance suite.

If standard JMS API calls + java.io can produce a "common serialized 
format" from messages, I would recommend that we investigate doing 
this.  The format would presumably contain not only the JMS message 
body, but also headers/environmental information.  Conformance testing 
would then involve: hooking up this serializer, and running a 
comparison utility against the messages.  Modules sender, receiver, 
serializer, verifier.  Data would then be a standard set of messages, 
and the rules for verifying conformance.

This may be what you're suggesting.  If so, please forgive my 
misunderstanding.

Amy!
> 
> Phil Adams WebSphere Development - Web Services
> IBM Austin, TX
> email: phil_adams@us.ibm.com
> office: (512) 838-6702  (tie-line 678-6702)
> mobile: (512) 750-6599
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com> Sent by: 
> public-soap-jms-request@w3.org
> 05/22/2008 08:19 AM
> 
> To
> "Peter Easton" <peaston@progress.com>
> cc
> public-soap-jms@w3.org
> Subject
> RE: [SOAP-JMS] minutes 2008-05-20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings Peter, off to a quick start!
> I have NOT worked my way through it all yet but you make it clear 
> that we 
> will have to think about a testing/conformance framwork of some kind 
> as well 
> as the tests. The framework will have to examine the JMS Messages to 
> ensure 
> that they conform. How should we do this? I do not know. We could get 
> a hook 
> into the requestor and responder or perhaps we should develop two 
> components, 
> a "conformance checking responder app" and a "conformance checking 
> requesting app" that simply drive the binding implementations.
> Regards, Roland
> FBCS, CITP
> IBM Software Group, Strategy, Software Standards
> 
> 
> 
> "Peter Easton" <peaston@progress.com> 21/05/2008 21:48
> 
> To
> Roland Merrick/UK/IBM@IBMGB, <public-soap-jms@w3.org> cc
> 
> Subject
> RE: [SOAP-JMS] minutes 2008-05-20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a initial pass.  I started copying a lot of the core document 
> test, 
> then decided it was easier to just locally annotate the assertions 
> and 
> personal test comments as editorial comments to the spec, I suppose 
> we could 
> come up with "testernote" annotation . Nothing, of course, has been 
> checked 
> into cvs.  I haven't completed the WSDL Usage section nor looked at 
> the IRI 
> spec  Peter
>  From: public-soap-jms-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-soap-jms-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Roland Merrick
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:42 AM
> To: public-soap-jms@w3.org
> Subject: [SOAP-JMS] minutes 2008-05-20
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/20-soap-jms-minutes.html
> ACTION: Peter and Phil will take a first pass of the spec to identify 
> assertions [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/20-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]
> 
> Regards, Roland
> FBCS, CITP

-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2008 14:16:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:17 GMT