W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2004

RE: Thoughts on MTOM testing

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:33:56 -0700
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633802D8B050@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Noah,

I'm not aware of what's happening at SOAPbuilders. On a recent call,
David asked for some input from people who would be providing
implementations during CR as to what the tests should cover. I promised
to provide such input by today. Hence my note. I think to exit CR we
need to show that 2 or more implementations can interoperate, I guess
this is just a first stab as to what 'interoperate' means.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 28 July 2004 16:09
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on MTOM testing
> 
> I'm curious, because at least one person has asked me:  am I 
> correct in 
> assuming that many of these tests will be in practice 
> deployed through the 
> existing soapbuilders testing community (and perhaps in 
> occasional private 
> 1-to-1 experiments as well.)  Stated slightly differently, 
> your note could 
> be taken to imply that we in W3C are about to specifically 
> support some 
> sort of interop event.   Am I right in guessing that we are primarily 
> involved just in discussions to ensure that the tests run over at 
> soapbuilders will meet our needs for CR evaluation?  Many thanks.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn 
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 07/28/04 11:00 AM
> 
>  
>         To:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        Thoughts on MTOM testing
> 
> 
> 
> I promised to post some thoughts on what kind of tests we could run
> during the CR period for MTOM/XOP. Here they are;
> 
> 1.               In terms of simplicity, I think an echo test 
> would be 
> easiest,
> but with a little twist. If the media type of the request message is
> application/soap+xml then the response should be MTOM. And vice-versa.
> This will test both receiving and sending MTOM messages.
> 
> 2.               We could define an element that contains the 
> optimized 
> data, so
> that it's easy to write code to find that element, rather 
> than having to
> look for a whole bunch of them. This will just make implementing the
> echo test easier.
> 
> 3.               We should test messages with a single binary part.
> 
> 4.               We should test messages with multiple binary parts.
> 
> 5.               We could test xmlmime:content-type by 
> specifying it on a 
> request
> message of application/soap+xml and checking that the Content-Type
> header of the corresponding MIME part is set correctly in the response
> message.
> 
> 6.               For failure cases, we could test request 
> messages that 
> have
> binary parts missing ( dangling include ) and messages that use
> Content-Location ( not allowed, MUST use Content-ID ).
> 
> Proposed xml for single binary part messages:
> 
> <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap='http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope' 
>                xmlns:xm='http://www.w3.org/2004/06/xmlmime' >
>  <soap:Body>
>   <p:EchoTest xmlns:p='http://example.org/test' >
>    <p:Data xm:content-type='image/jpeg'
> >ufzZppdWP+APreQS5N3QMbmer9Qb5jJvBJOhIUqXQNBqketslkPtf3VTkouE5
> IP3Iwc0s4y
> 3vNPJaaEEtR6Wdw==</p:Data>
>   </p:EchoTest>
>  </soap:Body>
> </soap:Envelope>
> 
> And for multiple binary part messages:
> 
> <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap='http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope' 
>                xmlns:xm='http://www.w3.org/2004/06/xmlmime' >
>  <soap:Body>
>   <p:EchoTest xmlns:p='http://example.org/test' >
>    <p:Data xm:content-type='image/jpeg'
> >ufzZppdWP+APreQS5N3QMbmer9Qb5jJvBJOhIUqXQNBqketslkPtf3VTkouE5
> IP3Iwc0s4y
> 3vNPJaaEEtR6Wdw==</p:Data>
>    <p:Data xm:content-type='application/octet-stream'
> >rJF4LVZatSi6Xep5LRPvpC8UaIDbCO4JDm6j9qLDN7noGVA/Gdl+MzpQT4a0C
> gccwrTyDhL
> BOaOibx/ot76G9g==</p:Data>
>    <p:Data xm:content-type='audio/wav'
> >DyJf8o/ih/WcQn5aV7zcrFJAy7TuDGMGjYgQ82rrwvegAhcAnTayWMFs9rTI1
> TeCIH4L4Z3
> lEQO/WGUG0pOKsA==</p:Data>
>   </p:EchoTest>
>  </soap:Body>
> </soap:Envelope>
> 
> Does this make sense? What other tests should we do?
> 
> Gudge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:34:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:18 GMT