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

Roland,
 
I think you are illustrating that there are a number of possible
approaches to testing.
 
The Conformance Tester(Requester,Responder) is one approach.
 
I'd had actually editorialized a question about having a "middle-man" -
for an API some kinda facade/delegator/interceptor verifying the sent
and received messages.
  
As I was reading through the spec some more food for thought came up....
 
i. Being from a JMS vendor company, my original mind set was on the fact
that all the participants will want to involve their JMS providers in
testing. I guess that that's not strictly necessary - we could pick on a
baseline JMS provider - and validate out SOAP/JMS integrations (JNDI)
against that.
 
ii. Are we required as W3C deliverables to test "conformance" or
demonstrate "interoperability" ? I always think conformance is a good
first step(e.g. your tester idea) then we start plugging WS SOAP/JMS
consumer integrations against   WS SOAP/JMS provider integrations.
 
Peter

________________________________

From: Roland Merrick [mailto:roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:19 AM
To: Peter Easton
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
<http://www.w3.org/2008/05/20-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01> ] 

Regards, Roland
FBCS, CITP



________________________________




Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU 










________________________________





Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU