- From: Don Mullen <donmullen@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:16:50 -0500
- 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 UTC