W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org > December 2005

RE: Minutes - WS-Addressing Test Suite TF call 8 Dec 2005

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:02:29 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC9522550276F0E2@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>

Arun,

> With this, can I use WS-I monitor to log my SOAP messages and then use 
> the supplied stylesheet to transform the monitor log into the required 
> format ?

yup, stylesheet here:
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/logs/ws-i/ws-i.xsl

example output here:
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/logs/ws-i/ws-i.xsl

> I understand there could be multiple approaches but is the following one 
> a correct approach ?

What's not 'correct' about it?

> As a test developer, I focus on writing my tests (whether I start from 
> WSDL or not is an implementation detail). WS-I monitor can be used to 
> capture SOAP logs. ws-i.xsl will transform the captured monitor log into 
> another XML document understood by observer.xsl. Finally, observer.xsl 
> will parse this newly created XML log file and report which tests are 
> passing and failing.

Yes, except we don't require the WS-I monitor to capture the logs, you
can use tcpdump, SOAPscope, YATT, tcptrace, Ethereal, libpcap, whatever 
suites you, and if your service or client captures messages then you can 
generate a log from that. 

> What are the other alternatives to generate pass/fail results ?

You can check the messages by hand, if you prefer. If you have an 
alternative proposal for CR testing, then I suggest you put a proposal
to the Working Group, and we can discuss it.

>> Arun's coordination concern will be addressed by having at least one
>> public endpoint for people to check their implementations prior to the event.

> Not sure how this addresse my concern. I was more interested in finding 
> out how will the implementers communicate with each other. In debugging 
> a test case failure, I'm guessing we'll be talking specifics about our 
> products and platforms and some of us may not like to share the 
> information publicly. Sun's product is all open sourced so I've no 
> inhibitions in talking publicly about it but that may not be the case 
> for all participants.

right, 'will' was a little stronger that I might have typed during working
hours, sorry I meant to say 'should be to a large extent'. 

I do take your point about debugging, in particular informally before the
event, so the alternatives of hooking up via direct email, via the list
or IRC still stand. At the interop "event" itself there will be ample
chance for coordination F2F, by phone, Zakim, IRC, IM, etc.

> In the WS-I Sample Apps WG, we created an alias only for the 
> implementers since the overall WG alias had approx 200 members. Are we 
> going to do something similar here as well ?

Well we do have this public list for discussion of testing. 

I'm wondering what more you are asking for - another list, just for 
implementers? Would the list be public, archived, W3C member only,
WG member only or a controlled, private subscription list just for 
"implementers"? I suggest talking to Hugo and see what's possible.

Paul
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 09:06:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:44 GMT