W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2002

SOAP Implementers Report - Nov 14

From: Don Mullen <donmullen@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:16:50 -0500
Message-ID: <339902DC0E58D411986A00B0D03D843201B2488A@extmail.rtp.tibco.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Cc: "'David Fallside'" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, "'Alex DeJarnatt'" <alexdej@microsoft.com>, jacek@systinet.com, John Koropchak <johnko@microsoft.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, manoj.cheenath@bea.com, "'Glen Daniels'" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, "'Paul Kulchenko'" <paulclinger@yahoo.com>, Joe Baysdon <jbaysdon@tibco.com>, Xan Gregg <xan@tibco.com>


Representatives from the SOAP implementers listed on the summary page
[http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/soap1.2implementation.html] held a
telcon Thur, Nov 14, to review action items, and  to review SOAPBuilders
test coverage over the latest feature list. Here is a brief report from that
meeting.

1. Present: Systinet (Jacek), Microsoft (Jon, Alex), TIBCO (Don)

2. Review action items from last telcon.

[DONE] -- Microsoft to determine which SOAPBuilders tests can be applied to
the features in Table 2. Due
tuesday 12 Nov. [See below.]

[?] David to query Ansih re recyling of assertion numbers

[DONE] -- Henrik to post a question to dist-app asking about 2nd sentence in
feature 60
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Nov/0002.html

[DONE] -- Jacek to post to dist-app implications of XMLP f2f meeting HTTP
decision for feature 33
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Nov/0003.html

[RETIRED] Glen to post to dist-app a question about keeping spec text re.
Must allow headers to contain additional information in RPC context. [Glen
reconsidered significance of issue and decided not to post.]

[DONE] Don to set up next telcon

3. Review SOAPBuilders Report from Microsoft

Here is the report based on discussions/decisions made during the call:

<Report>

Current Round 1-4 Tests:
Features covered by Round 1 interop testing (rpc/encoded): 13, 27.1, 27.2,
27.3, 27.5, 77.1, 77.2, nodeType attr
Features covered by Round 4 interop testing (doc/literal): 2, 71, 8, 9, 11,
13, 19, 29.1, 47, 48, 49, encodingStyle=none
Features partially covered by Round 4 interop testing (doc/literal): 1.1,
1.2
Features covered by all rounds interop testing: 31, 34, 38, 73
Features covered by Round 4 fault testing (doc/literal): 41
 
Proposed:
Features covered by proposed intermediary test (doc/literal): 1.1, 1.2, 78,
relay attr
Features covered by a Round1-style "echoMultiple" (rpc/encoded): 53.1, 53.2,
54
Features covered by a Round1-style "echoHeader" (rpc/encoded): 59
Features covered by a Round1-style "echoFault" (rpc/encoded): 60

Need Tests:
Features covered by a test of SOAP Response MEP: 32, 72
Features covered by a test of RPC over DIME: 51

Need to discuss:
Features we need to discuss how to test: 74, 75

</Report>

Changes from original report:
o removed 33 from "need to discuss" as discussed 
o removed 52 from "need tests" as discussed - MEPs not defined in SOAP not a
feature of SOAP 
o moved 73 from "need tests" to "current round 1-4 tests" 
o added detail to "need tests" section 

4. Meeting Notes

Who should post the tests?  Currently  Microsoft / Whitemesa have posted
SOAPBuilder endpoints.  Some Round4 tests have been performed between
Whitemesa and Microsoft SOAP 1.2 implementations.  Need to follow up with
Bob Cummins to get latest status of Whitemesa.

Discussions on specific features:

32 - need test

33 - Alex/Jon would like Henrik available for discussion
     Jacek thinks unnecessary in table
     what planned in spec - two MEPs tied one-to-one - GET/POST
     if some implementation uses req/resp tied to POST -- use soap-response
tied to GET
     support for web method feature - values might vary - so unnecessary
     Jacek indicated Marc Baker replied with concern about working group
decision to tie together
     Did not seem concerned is about removing feature 33

51 - need to pick another transport - agree for at least one pair to
demonstrate
     DIME / soap with attachments a good choice?  over TCP?

52 - Another MEP - use output?  use only rpc?
     Proposal to drop 52 - no other MEPs defined in SOAP
     Currently very limited support for this....

72 - Again, limited support for this.
     Covered by test for 32
     Jacek thinks at least one implementation supports this

73 - move up to tests already support

74/75
   - if any soap tests realize xsi:type -- then tested
     if any soap tests realize on absense of xsi:type - then 75 tested
   - with or without schema information / validation?

   Need:
     <echoType xsi:type='xsd:int'>32<echoType> - to return 'int'
     if no xsi:type - returns 'untyped' or 'anyType'

     some question of two use cases: both with and without schema from WSDL
     - leave open about WSDL support

5. Action items
[DONE] Microsoft to post revised report based on telcon discussion
Don to coordinate with chair and implementers and schedule next meeting
Don to follow up with Bob Cummins on endpoints
Don to write up proposal to drop 52 and post
Alex/Jon to think through issues on 74/75 and report

6. Next steps
-- need to make sure latest changes have been made to the implementors page
-- followup on updated implementer reports
-- meeting to move forward with test coverage review and creation of new
tests
-- decisions/commitments from implementers on performing interop tests

--------------------
Don Mullen
TIBCO Software, Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 12:19:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT