- From: Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:19:51 +0530
- To: paul.downey@bt.com
- Cc: public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org
See inline ... paul.downey@bt.com wrote: > 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? I think this is correct and wanted to validate before I embark upon 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. If I use some other tool to capture the logs, then I need to write my own stylesheet to convert the logs to the format required by observer. Is that right ? > > >>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. I'm fine with the existing proposal. > > >>>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. So all the technical discussions are expected to happen on this email alias. Other than that, there might be some other 1-1 discussions to resolve interop bugs. Is that the idea ? -Arun > > Paul > -- got Web Services ? Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from http://java.sun.com/webservices
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 04:45:49 UTC